Boy shot while tp'ing mans home

[AA080]

I was just reading the news and came across this. Sounds really sketchy:


SOLON TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A toilet paper prank has led to the shooting of a 14-year-old by a southwestern Michigan man who believed strangers were trying to break into his home.

The Grand Rapids Press and WZZM-TV report the victim and four other teens were pulling the prank about 1 a.m. Sunday at a home in Solon Township, about 20 miles northeast of Grand Rapids.

Kent County sheriff's Lt. Jerry Miedema said the teens were intent on draping the house in toilet paper, while the homeowner's "intent was to come out shooting."

Police say three shots were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, striking the 14-year-old in the chest, stomach and leg. He is recovering at a local hospital.

The homeowner was not arrested, but a prosecutor is looking into possible charges.

[FrontSight]

Damn, that is so bad for everyone

[Byron Quick]

You can't fix stupid. On either side of the mess.

[Musketeer]

You can't fix stupid. On either side of the mess.

That about sums up my feelings on this.

[grymster2007]

You can't fix stupid. On either side of the mess.

Well yes you can.... at least in this case. I don't think the boy-full-o-buckshot will be TP-ing anyone's house again and as for the homeowner; if he's brought up the on the charges that he's likely to be, he won't be shooting stupid teenage pranksters anymore.

Too bad that most nobody else will find lessons learned here.

[Keltyke]

Well yes you can.... at least in this case. I don't think the boy-full-o-buckshot will be TP-ing anyone's house again
Getting shot for simple trespass and malicious mischief? That's a hard line you draw for a "lesson", grymster. What if it were your kid? Someone shoots my kid for TPing a yard has a serious problem with me, even if the AG let's him off.

and as for the homeowner; if he's brought up the on the charges that he's likely to be, he won't be shooting stupid teenage pranksters anymore.
Charges? Let's start with assault with intent to kill.

The punishment does NOT fit the crime.

I'm glad the kid is going to be OK. I hope it haunts the homeowner until he dies.

Getting shot ain't temporary - dead is permanent. Let's exercise and accept some gun owner responsibility, people.

[ATW525]

I'll reserve judgement until more of the facts are known. The story doesn't really give enough to go on.

[Musketeer]

Unless that TP was on fire when being thrown on the house responding with a gunshot was completely unjustified.

[w_houle]

Edit: Removed vitriol before posting.
I hope this doesn't turn into a "feel good" law.

[Half-Price Assassin]

Beanbag shotgun shells, or a taser would have been what i would have used. now before everyone jumps on me for saying that, just keep this in mind, i would never TP anyones house, or home, so dont TP me, or your getting shocked. I dont care if its a prank, my home is my castle, and i would not allow anyone to come in and trash it, so no one will trash the outside of it.

[Musketeer]

Understand that as a civilian anything fired out of a shotgun is automatically considered deadly force. Use deadly force when not warranted and go to jail.

The use of a taser would be borderline. Unless you challenged them and they failed to desist shocking them would normally be considered unreasonable force by most juries.

It's toilet paper people. Worth a scolding, yes. Worth calling the cops, sure. Worth inflicting physical harm on another person for, grow up.

[grymster2007]

Getting shot for simple trespass and malicious mischief? That's a hard line you draw for a "lesson", grymster.

I drew no lines, I merely pointed out that some stupidity got fixed here.

What if it were your kid? My kid? My kid? Nah; my kid wouldn't TP someone's house! :)

[Byron Quick]

Getting shot for simple trespass and malicious mischief? That's a hard line you draw for a "lesson", grymster.

What if it were your kid?

A good friend of mine brought over his child (who was eighteen or nineteen at the time)to my house. The boy has been in juvenile trouble that indiicates that burglary might also be in either his repertoire or that of his friends. The kid dropped out of school, doesn't work, mooches off his parents. Mom won't let Dad kick his worthless butt out.

I've got some valuable possessions. After noticing him eyeing some stuff, I asked Charles, his father, to tell him what my reaction would be if I found the son in my house uninvited. Charles said,"Jonathan, he would shoot here(touches his son's center of mass) many times." without blinking an eye.

I told Jonathan,"I would also put flowers on your grave and pray for your soul."

Now Jonathan has since been arrested for being part of a burglary ring that hit many area homes.

But, for some reason, they didn't hit here.

Reckon I connected with his inner child.

[Keltyke]

The boy has been in juvenile trouble

if I found the son in my house uninvited. Charles said,"Jonathan, he would shoot here(touches his son's center of mass) many times." without blinking an eye.

That's a BIG jump from simple TPing a house. It's not even a remote parallel.

I can't believe some of you people. Bean bag ammo? TASERing? I'm with you, Musketeer.

I'm also out of this thread.

[grymster2007]

Before you leave Keltyke, you should concede that I condoned no violence here. :)

[mpage]

three shots were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, striking the 14-year-old in the chest, stomach and leg. He is recovering at a local hospital.

[zipping into my Nomex suit] This is one instance in which the homeowner was fortunate to only use birdshot.

[JAYBIRD78]

This is why they make slingshots!

[FrontSight]

Bear pepper spray would have been a good idea...surveillance of the situation to determine if it really was a life threatening attack would have been a good idea...

This gives me a GREAT idea...you know those fire extinguishers they have at gas stations over the pumps? I am going to market one with pepper spray outside people's houses!

[Relayer]

grymster, you are right, of course. There are most definitely clear lessons to be learned here (or available to be learned) by those in the story and others reading the story.

1. It's not wise to pull pranks such as this. Among other things, you can get yourself shot. You shouldn't get shot (imho), but that is beside the point.

2. Don't shoot people running around in your yard with toilet paper. Even if they throw it on your house (if, indeed, that is all that happened in this incident).

[mpage]

Understand that as a civilian anything fired out of a shotgun is automatically considered deadly force. Use deadly force when not warranted and go to jail.

This bears repeating. You theoretically could kill someone with a "non-lethal" projectile, let alone the fact that it's excessive force to begin with.

Even if it wasn't, I'd hate to be the guy who reached for his "rubber buckshot" or pepper spray round and accidentally grabbed 000 magnum or something.

[hoytinak]

I'm not saying it moral and I wouldn't have shot anyone for tp'ing my house but in Texas it would have been a legal shot.

TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).

[jimbo_4]

Sure vandals are a pain in the butt, I don't think I would have shot one though. Not willing to lose my right to own firearms over that. Besides, there are more fun ways to mess with vandals, just have to get creative. :)

[EastSideRich]

Beanbag rounds? Taser? Bear spray?
How about "Hey, get the **** out of here!!"

Obviously no one wants to clean up toilet paper in their yard, but wow, some of you guys are a little harsh. I don't know if you can even really call it vandalism.

I know alot of people have the whole "my house is my castle" thing going on, but it's toilet paper for God's sake. Great bodily harm seems a little excessive.

I hope the guy goes to jail for a long time.

I'm not saying it moral and I wouldn't have shot anyone for tp'ing my house but in Texas it would have been a legal shot.

TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).

It makes a difference what time you do it?
I'm not saying I don't believe you about how the law is written, but I have a hard time believing you could legally kill someone for throwing a roll of toilet paper into a tree. If so, I don't even know what to say. Sad and scary at the same time. They may want to re-think how that one is written.

[hoytinak]

It makes a difference what time you do it?


Yep, during the day it's a Class C misdemeanor but at night time (no real time, just dark) it makes it a 3rd degree felony.

I've got a copy of the Penal Code right in front of me doing homework for a class I'm having to take for work.

[w_houle]

Actually this called for a certain amount of violence. The home owner should have used rotten eggs :D

[EastSideRich]

Actually this called for a certain amount of violence. The home owner should have used rotten eggs

This I can get on board with. Eggs, a well placed bb or a hail of paintballs; something like that.
I am still astounded that a state could have a law on the books that would allow for the use of deadly force. I wouldn't even expect this in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, (where they stone people and cut off hands), but Texas?
Again Hoytinak, I do believe you, I am just shocked.

[PT111]

My biggest concern here are the number that don't see anything wrong with vandalizing, and yes I consider TP'ing a house vandalizing, someone's home. Although I would not shoot the punks that go around doing this I am not sure I would call 911 for them if they got shot. A person that does this has no respect for others and is a low form of life. Sadly many of them grow up to be politicians which fits right in with the low form of life.

/rant off.

[FrontSight]

For the love of GOD, what the hell is wrong with some of you people??? I hate criminals about as much as most any other criminal hater does, but to state it is ok to purposely KILL a kid for pulling a stupid prank???!!! One that washes away with a hose or the next few rainstorms or a ladder and some time...are you insane??

I am disgusted by you people, and if I feel that way then just imagine how anti gunners would feel about you and therefore all firearm owners??

Shame on all of you who feel it is right to kill a young teenager, a 14 year old BOY, for a dumb joke. If we all faced the same judgement then very few of us would be alive today, for God knows we have all done much dumber things in our youth than throw a roll of toilet paper into a tree.

Guns are to protect your life against burglars, rapists, murderers, and corrupt governments, not from dumb little kids who haven't even lived long enough to know what life is about and are giggling as they go about a silly, albeit annoying, joke.

I am beside myself with disbelief and embarassment to be associated with a group who would end a boy's life for that.

[1-UP]

I agree that there really isn't a lot of information given. If it was a dark night and the kids were banging on the windows or doing something similar...who knows? It's astonishing what a 14 year old kid thinks is a good idea. Get a group of them together and you've got a 50/50 chance on whether they build a robot that or chose to drink paint in the shed.

That said, it I suspect it only takes about one incident like this to discourage most vandalism for a generation or two.

[Shadi Khalil]

Sounds to me like this is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. In my day tit for tat t'ping was a something we did all the time. Its a form of vandilism I can live with. People shooting childern for t'ping houses I cant live with. Thats the same for shooting them with bean bags, tazers, rubber rounds..

[mpage]

I have a hard time believing you could legally kill someone for throwing a roll of toilet paper into a tree.

Well according to the article, the prosecutor's office is looking into the possibility of charges being filed, so this obviously can't be OK in the eyes of the law.

[guntotin_fool]

THis is what the good Lord made lawn sprinklers for, to turn on when you have a yard full of kids tossing the charmin.


THis is a guy who should go to jail. The shooter, not the kid, at least from the two different news sources I have found. There was no implied threat. there was no aggressive action, and there was fear of GBH. therefore, its attempted murder.


What had happened if there were a couple of cheer leaders out there Chalking his driveway with Heather (hearts) joey? or If it had been a little old lady picking up dog Pooh her little terrier had laid on his grass?


Had he fired one shot, then realized that Oh )(*)*) what did I do?!? and called 911 while trying to save the kid, ok, but shoot three times, when there was no apparent weapon? Sorry, thats attempted murder.


GBH is the threshold, and he from all listed sources, had no fear of GBH.

[nate45]

I think people who find 'pranks' like that funny or that would even consider doing them obnoxious. I don't think its funny or cute or defensible and my first instinct is to severely brutalize people who do.

It is really sad that you can't even get away with giving little punks like that a beating and if instead of doing the same to them, their permissive, overprotective parents want to defend them and retaliate against me, I'd like to do the same to them or worse.

Conversely I don't think he should have shot at them, or done anything other than call the police, because sadly thats the kind of society we live in. The reason is so many of the present day 'adults' are just as obnoxious and in-mature as the little punk kids they raised are.:mad:

[fivepaknh]

Based on the information given the homeowner was 100% wrong and should face charges. I can understand investigating with weapon in hand, but was his sight so bad he couldn’t see it was just kids TP’ing his house? Then he had to shoot 3 times???!!! I’m not condoning what these kids did, but this was overkill on the homeowner’s part. Considering the things kids get into these days TP’ing is pretty tame. It was just kids being kids. They should be punished, but let the punishment fit the crime.

This guy should never own a firearm again and should spend a few years in jail. Hopefully the kid has no permanent injuries.

[Keltyke]

Before you leave Keltyke, you should concede that I condoned no violence here.

I agree, grym, and you're correct. My apologies if I seemed to jump hard, I just couldn't believe the tone of some of the other posts and I reacted. We're cool.

You're right, the boy DID learn a lesson, even though it was a hard one. However, sometimes those are the ones that stick with you. The bottom line is he's going to be ok and the homeowner (hopefully) will learn you can't crank off three rounds of buckshot for a TP incident.

Yes, I know in TX it's a 3rd class felony - but give me a break people. Use come temperance and common sense. We're supposed to be the adults here. Make the punishment fit the crime.

[hoytinak]

Yes, I know in TX it's a 3rd class felony - but give me a break people. Use come temperance and common sense. We're supposed to be the adults here. Make the punishment fit the crime

So, I take it you was talking about me earlier. I did say that I didn't think it was moral and that I wouldn't have done it....I was just stating how the law (here anyways) was written.

[Keltyke]

I was just stating how the law (here anyways) was written.

I realize that, hoy. ;) That's a strange quirk in the law.

[hoytinak]

yeah it is....but we can't open carry? :confused:

[Dwight55]

As previously stated, . . . can't fix stupid on either side here, . . . what is done, is done.

I wonder though, . . . as having had an aquaintance go through a terrible ordeal where he shot a 16 year old, . . . and wound up doing a year for it.

He had moved into a brand new subdivision, . . . very few houses were finished, . . . quite a number in various stages of construction, . . . and one night 3 or 4 teenagers came over and as he stated it, . . . were looking for something to steal.

He put his .44 Mag, Ruger, in his waistband behind him, . . . went out and challenged the kids, . . . told them he'd call the cops if they didn't get out and stay out.

I guess they cussed him real good, . . . then one of them picked up a piece of 2 x 4 and they started as a mob toward him.

My point? Unless you knew the last paragraph, . . . you would think his shooting at them would be totally inhumane, unjustified, stupid, reckless, etc.

Perhaps there was more to the TP'ing than we all know, . . . as I cannot in my wildest imagination, . . . think that a responsible, sane person would shoot a kid over a stupid prank like that.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Brit]

Sneaking paid for by Mum or Dad toilet paper out of the house to waste! He or they would be hot bottomed if they were my kids, money does not grow on trees.

Bird shot, not buck shot, buck shot would have a dead teen, as none of us where there, what actually happened? What type of vandalism had taken place before? Health of home owner?

And remember, as my Dad said, the only true print in a Newspaper was on the front page, at the top, the price.

[Khaot1c]

Heck, even charging outside with a paintball gun could end in tragedy....

But what if the home owner falls off his ladder while trying to clean up the mess the vandels left?

Another classic: Two Wrongs don't make a right. Unfortunatly, the man stepping outside and blasting away THREE times with a shotgun is far going to outweigh the vandal issue.... Paranoid gun owners are probably one of the biggest anti-gun arguments that we as law abiding citizens have to overcome, and this guy just fueled that fire BIG TIME.

[grymster2007]

the boy DID learn a lesson, even though it was a hard one. Hard lesson indeed and it may be that the homeowner learns an equally hard lesson.

Yup.... stupidity can be fixed..... too bad the price is so prohibitive.

[Musketeer]

TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).

and the first time a homeowner gets away with shooting a kid TPing a house based on that law you are going to see it changed. The result will be a whole lot LESS leeway for the reasonable homeowner to deal with threats.

Just because the law on the matter is fairly "liberal" in the traditional sense is not an invitation to be an idiot. Take advantage of that law enough and you will see it changed.

[RescueRich]

The boy has been released...

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/most_popular_story.aspx?storyid=100049&provider=top

I will not comment on anything else, would be a job ending thing to do. But I agree that people should get all of the facts before deciding on which side of the fence to be on.

TP'ing houses is a common thing in this township, but of all of the things kids could be out doing I would rather have them TP a house than most things.

It is sad this all happened. However, that is the only personal comment i'll make. I will keep you updated as I hear FACTS that can be passed along.

Rich Hays
Solon Township Fire Captain.

[Hondo11]

Quote from HOYTINAK:

TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only partly true. The penalty for Criminal Mischief is based on the dollar amount of pecuniary loss (ie: How much money the owner of the damaged property is out.) The penalty has NOTHING to do with the time of day.

However, Deadly Force IS justified to prevent the actor's immenent commission of Criminal Mischief AT NIGHTTIME. So...yeah, you may get No-Billed by the Grand Jury, but the possible civil trial is another story.

***This is in Texas...your state may be different.***

[stephen426]

I also agree that 3 shots pushes it over the edge of "I thought they were trying to break in." I think this clearly violates know what your target is and what is behind it. I would go out and shine a bright flashlight on them (or maybe turn on the flood lights surrounding my house. They would get the idea and beat it. Even most burglers would split knowing the howeowner was awake and expecting them. If I flipped on the lights and someone still tried going through my door (I would yell that I am armed and that the police have already been called), I would have NO QUALMS shooting them.

[Keltyke]

I gotta jump back in...

From the linked article:

"What I know of Mark , he's not a man who would just go firing a gun off if he saw teenagers toilet papering," says neighbor and friend Connie Fisk. "He's a very soft spoken man."
Jeez! When have we heard THAT before? Goetz, Dahlmer, Berkowitz: the list is long.

"I don't think the guy should have flipped out if it was only toilet paper," says neighbor Jared Fisk. "Maybe if the guy was breaking stuff on his property."
Lawd! You CAN'T shoot to protect property!

Kuncaitis shot out the rear window of their vehicle.
That's a FOURTH shot. This guy had killing in his heart. You can't tell me he didn't. He flipped out 100% full-goose bozo, and should probably undergo psychiatric examination.

"Seeing as how they were vandalizing and on his property, I think if the kid got away with what he did, he is lucky," says neighbor Chase Fisk. "They should probably just drop everything. Both sides were not thinking right."
Oh, the kid TPs some trees and gets shot three times for it and this guy wants to "just drop everything"?????????? "Not thinking right"??????? Can you say, "Attempted manslaughter"?

Now, before I get jumped...The kids were WRONG, completely WRONG. They should receive some type of punishment: community service, clean up the guy's yard, fines, after school home arrest, a good butt warming by their parents, being grounded until they're 35...but getting shot? Give me a break.

The people who condone this shooting scare me.

[bufordtjustice]

We don't know the whole story yet as others have stated but it does seem over the top based on the information at hand. This will be interesting to see as it plays out. I'm not sure about the state laws there but that last round through the back glass might get him in more trouble than anything else.

Anyway, the reason I wanted to post on this one was to help clarify something regarding bean bag and rubber bullet rounds. They are not considered NON-LETHAL projectiles, at least in every class I ever went to. They are considered LESS-LETHAL. The difference is very significant. Less Lethal still has the ability to kill such as a bean bag round to the face, etc. There is a fair amount of training that goes into using these and much of that covers legal issues, etc. One of the more common uses you will see is on an EDP or intoxicated person threatening themselves with something like a knife.

I am not condoning vandalism, and yes, that is certainly what they were doing. I am agreeing with others who thought this was a poor use of weapons and judgement. I have always felt that just because something might be legal, that doesn't make it the right thing to do and vice versa.

[tackdriver]

I am beside myself with disbelief and embarassment to be associated with a group who would end a boy's life for that.

Me too. I am shocked at many of your reactions.

[Daugherty16]

Maybe some more facts will come out, maybe one of the kids brandished a gun, who knows. Regardless of the whole story, there are a few lessons (and we've all seen these same lessons before) to remember here.
First - if you think there's a threat of GBH outside, you don't go outside! Let alone take a weapon with you. Arm yourself, stay inside, call 9-1-1. Stay on the phone, or have your spouse stay on the phone with them till the mounties arrive. Stay in your safe spot. Having a gun, let alone a CCW permit ,doesn't make you a vigilante and you imperil all our rights when reactionary people read stories about trigger-happy citizens. You just don't use deadly force for a property crime, especially something as innocent and prankish as TPing a house.
Second - If you don't think there's a threat of GBH, you don't pull a gun. Ever. Period. Still call the cops if they're vandalizing your property - if they're caught in the act, they'll probably have to clean it up, at the least, when the judge gets the case. If one of them has a gun, tell the cops and let them - the pros, by the way - do their jobs. But a TP job by youngsters? Just step outside and shout at them - they'll run like the dickens almost certainly. Of course then you're stuck with the cleanup.
Third - THINK! BEFORE! YOU! ACT! Most adults are capable of foreseeing consequences from their actions. This situation didn't call for violence at all, let alone gunshots. Right or wrong, guilty or justified, the entire thing was almost certainly avoidable. Even if the shooting isn't prosecuted, nobody needed to get shot at all.

and for those of you who condone this shooting, i strongly suggest you re-think your own reaction strategies. It's one thing to shoot a burglar in your home; it's the same thing to shoot a would-be mugger where weapons or violence is either explicit or easily implied; this isn't any of those things. If your plan includes reacting with deadly force to such innocent and non-threatening situations, you are courting disaster and needlessly endangering yourself and others. Consider reviewing the CCW and deadly force laws in your area. You should know them by heart anyway.

[w_houle]

It looks to me that shooting was the first thing on his mind rather than somewhere down the list. This is Sparta... Oh wait, this is tactics & training! So, what does this teach us about threat assessment? How could this conflict be resolved differently?

[peetzakilla]

So, what does this teach us about threat assessment? How could this conflict be resolved differently?

See previous post by Daugherty16! +1

[PT111]

Back many years ago when I was in high school some of my friends stopped by the local station one night and stole a crate of pepsi bottles. They then drove down the road seeing if they could hit the mail boxes with the bottles. there were quite a few mail boxes damaged the next day when the postman came by. The next night they did it again getting the rest of them on that road. This was also a teen age prank just like TP'ing a house wouldn't you say? After all everyone does stupid things when they are teenagers.

Except in this case they were caught and had to replace eveyone of the mailboxes to keep form going to jail. I was not in on it. :)

[triggerhappy2006]

man who believed strangers were trying to break into his home.

First and foremost rule of any gun handling(hunting, self defense, target shooting, military)
KNOW YOUR TARGET!!!!!!! It seems that this can't be stressed enough. People like this idiot are what really gives gun owners a bad name.

And as for what I would do: First assess the situation then the following Yell like crazy, rack the shotgun(not fire), shoot him with a paintball marker, egg him, maybe call the police(but it is just toilet paper), most likely follow him home tell his parents and demand that he clean it up.

[w_houle]

I missed that post. Wordy, but good. Didn't get the GBH thing though.

[Delaware_Dan]

I would have shot the kid in the ass with a paintball gun, watched him run away, and called it a night.

[Playboypenguin]

TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).
Some people are doing some very selective reading of this law. They seem to be missing all the qualifiers in that penal code. You are only justified and protected if you meet a long list of requirements and conditions. This situation meets none of them.

I would suggest to everyone who lives in a state with castle doctrines or similar laws to familiarize yourselves with every word of them before falsely believing you have a blank check to shoot anyone that trespasses, vandalizes, or steals from you.

Also keep in mind simply "believing" something is a whole lot different than "reasonably believing" something. You better be darned sure of any situation before you go pulling a trigger. Shoot first and ask questions later is not a valid philosophy. I doubt a jury is going to find anything about this mans actions "reasonable" if he is charged.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

[Hondo11]

I clarified the law, in bare bones format, in my post. I did not imply, suggest, or otherwise indicate that the man took the proper course of action. Without knowing ALL the facts, I won't make a judgement on that.

(For the TEXAS Penal Code section that was referred to)...He had to have reasonably believed that the property couldn't have been protected any other way and that force other than Deadly Force would have placed him at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

If those requirements were met (and reasonableness MUST be considered in the view of the facts and circumstances as HE saw them at THAT TIME...hindsight does not apply), then he was "justified" according to TEXAS Penal Code. (I realize that it didn't happen in Texas...that's the law that was thrown out there though).

"Legal" and "moral" justification aren't always the same. Like I said, I won't make an opinion or judgement until I know ALL the facts.


Edit: The first clue is that the article states that he believed they were trying to break into his home. If that's true, then in HIS mind, he wasn't shooting them for a simple prank. Did they have a ladder up against his house and when he came out, he saw them and thought they were trying to go in a window? How much toilet paper was visible to HIM to indicate what they were up to? Maybe they were just getting started and he didn't have the toilet paper to clue him in to their intentions. Maybe he is old and was scared of a group of teenagers...people who's age he couldn't determine in the dark? I'm just throwing these out there as a reminder that not everything is as cut and dry as a newspaper article makes it out to be.

For example: The mother of a dead suspect states to the newspaper that her son "was a good boy" and that he was shot for "resisting arrest." Well, you can't shoot someone for simply resisting arrest, so her statement makes it look bad. But then, you find out that "resisting arrest" meant the 16-year old attacked the officer with a hammer and struck him in the head during the fight. That changes things a little, doesn't it?

Get ALL the facts before proclaiming these wide-sweeping judgements.

[Playboypenguin]

If those requirements were met (and reasonableness MUST be considered in the view of the facts and circumstances as HE saw them at THAT TIME
That is the wrong definition of reasonable. Him simply thinking it does not make it reasonable. Not even close. Such judgments are made based on the "reasonable man" criteria. His actions as described would not be considered reasonable.

What was his justification for believing they were breaking in to his home? Where the trying to enter a window? Force a door? If they were not his reasons are very questionable.

Guys like this trying to make up justification and then hide behind protection laws will cause one thing...the laws to be rescinded/repealed.

Plus, even if someone illegally enters your home you are not necessarily justified in using deadly force. There still is a long list of qualifiers.

[M1911]

My biggest concern here are the number that don't see anything wrong with vandalizing, and yes I consider TP'ing a house vandalizing, someone's home.I haven't seen anyone here suggest that TPing a house is OK.

I've seen a fair number of people here saying shooting is not the correct response to some kid TPing a house. And I agree with them.

[Hondo11]

The United States Supreme Court said that when judging the "reasonableness" of a person's actions, hindsight CANNOT be used and that the facts and circumstances as seen by THE PERSON, AT THAT TIME, are what must be considered.

If you have some inside knowledge as to what the gentleman believed, saw, THOUGHT he saw, etc, AT THAT TIME, then by all means, enlighten me.

I'm not being argumentative, but the article doesn't state facts and circumstances as seen by THAT man at THAT time. It says that some kids were shot while trying to TP a man's house. It also says that LE stated "his intent was to come out shooting." That's hearsay unless it's a FACT proven in the investigation.

I am not defending the man's actions. Why? Because I don't KNOW what he did, saw, or believed. I wasn't there and I haven't interviewed him. He hasn't testified to anything and nobody has made a determination on anything.

Premature, knee-jerk reactions are what I take issue with.

[pax]

Premature, knee-jerk reactions are what I take issue with.

And so do I.

Guys, I think we've explored about all we can reasonably explore unless or until more facts come to light. I'm closing this contentious thread for now; please feel free to PM me suggesting a re-open (or just start a new thread) when more facts are available.

Thanks.

pax