The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 19, 2009, 01:18 AM   #51
Hank15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2009
Location: California
Posts: 437
A good guy killed a bad guy.

Why can't we just leave it at that?

Last edited by Hank15; June 19, 2009 at 01:34 AM.
Hank15 is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 01:18 AM   #52
Donn_N
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
Quote:
Maybe you are confused? I'm not discussing upsides. The scenario we were discussing before we got off topic was this man that was protecting his home against a criminal and a druggie. The criminal not only refused to leave, he made a move on the homeowner. A fatal mistake. I fail to comprehend where the homeowner was at fault.
I'm not confused. You clearly stated you would rather enter into a confrontation where you could be killed rather than appear to be a coward. I ask again, what is the upside to going into a confrontation and getting killed rather than avoiding that confrontation. I didn't really expect an answer and I wasn't disappointed.

If you cannot comprehend that it is better for an ill 69 year old man to avoid a confrontation with a known drug user by staying in his home and calling the police as opposed to voluntarily entering into a confrontation where he was forced to kill, I can't explain it to you. But I will ask this - what benefit did the shooter get from confronting and killing the BG?
Donn_N is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 01:25 AM   #53
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
WA seems to be war bickering. He jumps in with statements that immediately put people on the defensive before they can even think critically about the subject. This is not helpful.

I see him time and time again jump in and post THUMP THUMP THUMP.

Why should anyone listen to WA about being responsible gun owners if he cannot take responsibility for his aggressive posts?

this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with his opinion on a lot of things but WA needs to bring it down a little. I am tired of a difference of opinion turning into tense conversation because WA busted onto the scene.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 01:26 AM   #54
Sixer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,891
Seriously Ken, what's your definition of a "good shoot"? You sit there and defend the tweeker while calling foul on the homeowner who was defending his property.

You are playing Monday morning quarterback. This fella had every reason to feel his life was in danger. He gave the kid fair warning... Should he have waited? Waited for the crack head to make another move? Would it have been ok to fire then?

This guy was well within his rights according to the law. I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards. The cracked out kid made the mistake, not the other way around. One less criminal to "rehabilitate"
__________________
Hopp Custom Leather <------ click for HOLSTER awesomeness!!

-There is no theory of evolution... Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
Sixer is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 01:41 AM   #55
Hondo11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
Quote:
There is no reason for the homeowner to have to retreat in Texas, legally or morally. It might be best tactically, however.
It really is that simple.
Hondo11 is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 01:59 AM   #56
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with his opinion on a lot of things but WA needs to bring it down a little. I am tired of a difference of opinion turning into tense conversation because WA busted onto the scene.
Thats what the report post button is for. I wont respond to the rest of your childishness, except as to note that if you cant stand the heat in the kitchen, don't plug in the waffle iron

Quote:
Seriously Ken, what's your definition of a "good shoot"? You sit there and defend the tweeker while calling foul on the homeowner who was defending his property.
For the record, where I have I defended the decedant.......and calling him a tweaker based on the shooters allegation that he "found" a crack pipe is a bit much at this point....

Now...Defending his property? Where do you see that? He had a confrontation with a teenager and when the teenager came back, he CHOSE to escalate the situation by introducing a gun and coming out to confront the kid, when he could have called 911...he had no biz going out with a gun on a trespass!

Quote:
This fella had every reason to feel his life was in danger.
really? Got some facts to support that?

Quote:
This guy was well within his rights according to the law.
was he? Got some facts to support that?

Quote:
I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards.
Now really...really...got some facts to support that? On the other hand, can we infer that by coming out with a gun against (as we understand it) an unarmed teenager he wanted to do a bit more than stroke the kids hair...read the article (FWIW) carefully by the way as to the psychosocial circumstances in that neighborhood

Quote:
One less criminal to "rehabilitate"
Thumpthumpthump...you were doing Ok until you pulled off the mask...

Sorry sport, I don't consider good shoots to be looking to go out and start confrontations while armed and then gunning down unarmed folks.......you have a gun, you are the one who is responsible for its use...thats an awesome responsibility that demands circumspection, maturity and being man enough to back down..

Thas right boys and girls...REAL MEN have enough confidence in themselves and enough honour to back down, to turn the other cheek if necessary...

Some of y'all need to stop staring so hard into the abyss.....

Lots of lives at stake, including your own...life aint white hats, black hats and high noon

WildandifimpissingyouoffowellatleastyouarethinkingaboutitAlaska TM

PS I hope that some of you never have to experience the heartbreak of your little Johnny playing teenage mailbox busting and having some codger blow him away over it...never mind, mailbox busters are criminals, evil and deserve to die....especially in Texas
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 02:21 AM   #57
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
Well noted on the report button. As for my other CHILDISHNESS of course you wont respond because you do not know how to respond to the truth.

QUIT TALKING SMACK! give your opinion and leave it at that. No need for the sport and the other crap. QUIT IT WITH THE TRASH TALK!
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 03:28 AM   #58
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,492
Quote:
when he could have called 911...he had no biz going out with a gun on a trespass!
I think a person has every bizness going out the door to thier property with a gun especially on a tresspass above most other things. Also when you call the cops they sure don't show up with rubber chickens they pack heat. Even though in most instances the officer will never have to draw his weapon his presence with the weapon is mostly what threatens a person into submission.

Going out to your own property armed for a tresspasser isn't bloodlust chest pounding its a rightful threat of force.

This guy had a threat of deadly force and advanced on the owner anyways. The owner has to assume any conflict will be over his weapon and will be deadly.

The guy who was shot called bluff and he was wrong.

Last edited by teeroux; June 19, 2009 at 03:39 AM.
teeroux is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 03:45 AM   #59
bamafan4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2009
Posts: 190
Theres one more thug off the streets. thats all that matters id congratulate him but the rest of america has sissy'd up instead of cowboy'd up. i mean seriously a little thug is killed by a hard working american for treaspassing and threatining the guy? so the old man is the villian instead of the hero? get over your self's would you won't that kid walking the same streets with you and your family?
bamafan4life is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 06:06 AM   #60
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Let's see here... we have 2 versions of the same story.

The OP described what appeared to be a simple tresspass with the teen leaving behind a crack pipe. Trooper's version says the teen was trying to B&E the homeowner's vehicle when he was confronted.

Fact: Homeowner is 69 years old.
IMO, whether he's on oxygen or reasonably fit and able bodied, he's still 69 years old. The body does not recover from trauma as easily, bones are more brittle and the body does not recover from organ damage very well.

Fact: The trespasser/attempted-thief is 17 years old.
Even if he is a habitual crack user, he is likely in much better physical shape than the homeowner. It is typically true that a 17 year old will be faster, more agile and think faster than the senior citizen too.

Fact: The neighborhood has had a rash of thefts and burglaries in recent weeks. This may have sensitized the area residents to the presence of strangers.

Fact: In one confrontation in the recent period a neighbor armed with a shotgun had a difficult time scaring away a burglar. This indicates that some of the criminal element is not easily dissuaded by armed confrontation.

Whether the initial confrontation was "wise" or "prudent", the fact remains that you're legally within your rights to tell a trespasser (or someone fiddling with your vehicle) to get off your property.¹ Trespass is a low-priority crime in most communities. Once the police are called, expect your call to be handled only when no other serious crimes are on the call-list for your area and surrounding beats where your beat officer might have to back-up another officer. That means response times between 15 minutes and 3 hours, if at all.

The teen was told to leave during the initial confrontation and the teen did leave. According to reports, after the confrontation, the elder man found a crack-pipe left behind by the trespasser. Now, whether in the yard or car, he found it on his property and is within his rights to hold or dispose of it.

The teen returned a second time. We do not have the exact sequence of events that unfolded. At some point, the senior armed himself with a .22 rifle. This may have been prudent -- we do not know the size of either man. An argument ensued² and the senior citizen ordered the teen to leave yet again. During this period, after being ordered to leave the propery, the teen started towards the senior citizen who had a rifle. We do not know if the senior citizen could have easily retreated in complete safety.

According to Trooper's report, the elder man used an oxygen tank to assist his breathing. This puts him at a serious physical disadvantage for obvious reasons.

We do not know the demeanor of the teen when he returned. However, having dealt with a few crack users myself and listening to local PD, it is less than likely that the teen returned and said "Golly, mister, I'm sorry to be annoying you once again, but I left a personal item behind that I would like to retrieve." It is likely the confrontation was tense and angry.

Given a 69 year old man with an oxygen tank to assist his breathing, he does not have a lot of easy mobility. Running any minor distance is probably very difficult. He's facing a teenager who is 4 times younger than he is. If the teen is of large stature, this furthers the disparity between the two.

Fact: The teen returned and apparenty initiated the 2nd confrontation³. He initially started to "walk away" but then, turned and "approached" the Senior from an unstated distance.

Thoughts:
Regardless of the prudence of either confrontation, the senior citizen was within his rights to tell the teen to leave. Telephoning the police would have been one way to handle the situation. But a low priority call for county sheriffs usually means a relatively long response time.

The largest gap here is the tone of the 2nd confrontation and the sequence of events. For instance, was the elder man inside his home talking through a loose screen door? Or on the front porch, rifle in hand?

The teen does not have to be physically imposing to be a serious threat to a 69 y/o on oxygen. But a "criminal-minded" teenager returning to trespass AND instigating a heated confrontation, THEN approaching a senior citizen holding a rifle, IMO, is a serious threat.

The teen is hostile, argumentative and undaunted by the presence of a firearm and he's decided to approach the elder man. That's not rational - most people would want to increase the distance between them an a gun wielding man. So he's hostile, argumentative AND irrational. Plus the senior is at a physical disadvantage in movement and physical stress.

I'm inclined to give the senior the benefit of the doubt here.

It seems to me that some of us are quick to question the wisdom of the elder man's choice to confront the teen and/or confront him whilst armed. Yet, there is no criticism of the youth's wisdom in confronting, arguing and then approaching an armed man on his own property. Nor of the teen's alleged possession of a crack-pipe. Or critical thinking of the disparity of force between the two men. There are several discussion threads about the dangers posed by an opponent who is up to 21 feet away being able to rush you before you can defend yourself. Yet, this danger is not even discussed, though it is relevant.

If threats were made by the teen during the initial trespass confrontation, then arming himself with the rifle may have been prudent for the senior citizen. The possession of the rifle, in theory, is to protect himself against attack, not to enforce his demands for the teen to leave. In this case, he believed the teens approach was a serious danger and used the rifle to stop that danger.



¹ In fact, in some areas, police will not even respond to a trespass call until after you have told the person to leave.
²According to news reports.
According to the original news article.
I say criminal-minded in reference to Trooper's account of the teen attempting to B&E the vehicle.
The evidence thus presented indicates as much. He fired only when the teen approached him. As opposed to taking a shot to "scare" the teen into leaving, or using multiple shots to kill the teen.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 06:47 AM   #61
tmd11111
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: San Angelo, Tx
Posts: 275
I may not have originated from Texas but Texas will be my home till I die.
tmd11111 is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 07:36 AM   #62
Michael Anthony
Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Posts: 83
Wild I'm usually with you, and I am on this one as well. We've seen too many situations develop into "self defense" scenarios when I would like to see what would have happened if the "victim" just called the police and kept watching TV. I would expect and respect him telling the guy to get lost the first time, but when its clear he isn't listening, why not call for help and finish your dinner?

Most harassment, repeated trespassing, and verbal threat related incidents stem from BOTH parties engaging in general obnoxiousness. If the guy had never gone outside, the kid never would have gotten killed. End of story.

If he still isn't charged by the end it would definitely go into the "moral vs. legal duty to retreat" bin. It becomes a classic case of a homeowner waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone.

I will throw one monkey-wrench into our viewpoint though (and BillCA did throw a few good ones as well). Police officers in many areas are trained to expect guns when they see drugs. This could extend to paraphernalia. Applying this logic could become part of defense to the actual shooting.
Michael Anthony is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 07:44 AM   #63
Elvishead
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2007
Location: Las vegas, NV
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
verti89


"Local story here in houston."

"although sadly most of them have been family related crimes."
Enough said!

Is this new?
Elvishead is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 07:51 AM   #64
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Anthony
We've seen too many situations develop into "self defense" scenarios when I would like to see what would have happened if the "victim" just called the police and kept watching TV. I would expect and respect him telling the guy to get lost the first time, but when its clear he isn't listening, why not call for help and finish your dinner?
Do you have much experience with crack users or meth users? Unpredictable bunch. I would never, as you said, "just called the police and kept watching TV" or finishing my dinner.

Perhaps your "gist" was to just dial 911 and wait for the infantry to arrive. The problem is that when some of these folks feel "wronged", they can go to great lengths to get even. Including throwing things through your windows or setting fire to your house. I suspect it's likely he accused the older man of "stealing" his crack pipe and made threats about getting it back, but that is only supposition.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:01 AM   #65
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,977
I am not in favor of executions or vigilantism, but if you read between the lines of the story, there are some things in the homeowner's favor.

First, his reason for confronting the trespasser - there was a history of recent thefts in the neighborhood ("burglars have taken all-terrain vehicles, tools, bicycles, and navigation and stereo equipment") and the homeowner had a shop or shed at his home where he stored "construction equipment." It isn't clear whether he is talking about backhoes or circular saws, but he certainly had an interest in protecting the equipment that he used to make a living, and it is understandable that he might exercise that interest by confronting a trespasser and potential thief.

Secondly, as has been brought out by a couple of previous posts, the teen responded to being ordered off the property by an armed homeowner by advancing on the property owner. That would seem to be a clear escalation and threat.

Certainly things could have been done better; most especially he should have called 911 at the beginning rather than at the end of the episode. But I just read another thread in which the police responded to a report of a thief brazenly stealing car parts in the driveway of a man's car with the owner standing there watching by promising to be there in thirty minutes. And I personally recently waited an hour and forty minutes for a response to a car accident after being rear-ended at a railroad crossing.

I know our LE agencies are overworked and undermanned and underfunded, and I don't blame them, but the inevitable result of slow response when people's lives, homes, and livelihoods are threatened are that they will act to protect their interests. If, as a society, we are going to abrogate the government's role in protecting its citizens, we must accept that they will protect themselves. In a certain way, we seem to be going backward to the situation that caused our founding fathers to call for citizens to arm themselves and participate in their own protection.
TailGator is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:10 AM   #66
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
A good guy killed a bad guy.

Why can't we just leave it at that?
Because it isn't ever that simple.

If the shoot wasn't legal, this it is not a matter of a good guy shooting a bad guy, but a bad guy shooting a bad guy.

If the shoot was legal, good for the homeowner.

Some are arguing that this shoot was at worst illegal and at best immoral and that regardless of the legalities, the homeowner was wrong.

Personally, other people's morals are for other people. They often like to inflict them on others in claiming moral high ground as justification and throwing out insults or mockery as a way of trying to bolster the appearance of the position being right, but such tactics don't actually make the position any more right and are actually rhetoric/argument fallacy of ad hominem.

The position being taken is that if you take the perspective of the homeowner being in the right, you are a chest thumper - which is in the connotation of being a negative attribute. You are a chest thumper not because the home owner's decision to act was necessarily illegal, but because certain people feel he acted wrongly as per their standards and hence anyone who doesn't agree gets the negative entitlement.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:12 AM   #67
skydiver3346
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,222
Wildalaska:

Sort of gotta agree with cloud8a on his comments. I respect you Wild and usually agree with you. But you did poop on the guy pretty badly. Let's all be nice....

Last edited by skydiver3346; June 19, 2009 at 08:27 AM.
skydiver3346 is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:17 AM   #68
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,389
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6487500.html
Quote:
Neighborhood fears flare up
Tension over race and crime rise to surface after teen’s killing

By MOISES MENDOZA
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
June 18, 2009, 10:28P

Meannine Orr moved to a street called Susanna Lane in north Harris County to get away from it all nine years ago.
But in the last few months, the 76-year-old has been too afraid to leave her home in this place people call Heidi’s Crossing, a leafy neighborhood with tidy mobile homes.
“It’s those people over there,” Orr said Thursday gesturing a street over toward Jimbo Lane. “They need to leave our neighborhood.”
A shooting a few houses down from Orr Wednesday morning created a frenzy of fear here, pitting neighbor against neighbor and leaving residents afraid to leave their houses.
Police say 69-year-old Dwayne Austgen shot Vidal Herrera after the 17-year-old confronted Austgen at his house in the 5500 block of Susanna Lane.
The case will likely be presented to a grand jury once authorities are done investigating, but Austgen has not been charged with a crime.
Herrera lived within walking distance on Jimbo Lane — known among some in the area as the “Hispanic street.” Austgen lives on a mostly Anglo street.
On Susanna Lane, many say Austgen was just protecting himself from a bad apple who wanted to rob him.
On Jimbo Lane, some believe the shooting has roots in racial tension.
• • • •
One thing most agree on: It was a matter of time before something went wrong here.
Over the last few months, burglars have hit a raft of cars and houses on Susanna Lane.
Many neighbors point to Herrera. They say he had a bad heart and stole things with friends.
Janie Witcher, for instance, suspects the boy took her sons’ bikes.
A neighbor once pulled a gun to scare him away, but Herrera just laughed, she said.
Said Heather Koenig, 24, who moved here about two years ago: “When I moved here they told me it should be called ‘The Devil’s Crossing,’ not Heidi’s Crossing.”
One day, Koenig said, she found her two dogs had been poisoned and killed but she’s not sure who did it.
Herrera had been bugging Austgen lately, despite the fact that the man is feeble and sometimes needs oxygen to breathe, neighbors said.
So with her street’s history in mind, Witcher believes Austgen was defending himself Wednesday.
“I mean we were all terrified of those kids, even my husband is terrified,” said Witcher, who lives with her four children, a grandchild and her husband.
A woman who identified herself as Austgen’s wife at his home said the shooting was a “tragedy and we’re sorry it had to happen.” She said her husband didn’t want to speak to the media.
• • • •
On Jimbo Lane, Herrera’s family put on black ribbons Thursday as the boy’s mother, Evelia Herrera, sobbed on the front porch and tried to plan a weekend funeral.
Her son — her only son — was a good boy, she said.
He cooked food for her and dreamt of being a mechanic.
Herrera was in the ninth grade but he wasn’t involved in drugs and he never stole things, family members said.
“It’s not right, it’s not right,” said his sister, Marisa Peralta, 20. “I don’t know why my brother was over there, but I know for sure he wasn’t bad. He was probably just defending himself.”
There’s been tension in this neighborhood between the whites and Hispanics for a long time, said Peralta.
“They say we’re bad people but it’s not true,” Peralta said. “The people over there always tell us bad things and call us names.”
Names like “wetback” said Angel Hernandez, a 12-year-old who lives on Jimbo Lane.
Once, the boy said, he got in a fight with people here because they called him names.
Most people on Jimbo Lane long ago learned it’s best to stick to themselves. That’s what Valentin Ramos does.
“We don’t really go out, we just stay in our house. There’s always extremists of every race, and I don’t have a problem with anyone here,” said Ramos, a preacher who’s lived here for about five years.
A sergeant in the Sheriff’s Office district which oversees the neighborhood said he didn’t think the neighborhood had unusual problems. He referred further comment to a detective investigating the shooting who did not return messages.
• • • •
Witcher said the race issue is a red herring. What matters, she said, is the fear her neighborhood has been under for months.
“It doesn’t matter if he was black, white or purple, everyone knew what this kid was doing,” she said.
This weekend Witcher plans to send her children away from the neighborhood. Orr said she’ll lock herself in her house, like she does every day.
“I don’t go out, I don’t talk to them over there,” she said. “I’m afraid.”
So we get the usual argument of the dead person being a good kid, never involved in anything bad, etc. and also that he is a 17 year old 9th grader. If correct, that makes him a very OLD 9th grader. Something isn't right.

His picture is at the link above. He isn't a small, withered crackhead by any stretch. He looks to be in good shape.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:27 AM   #69
Donn_N
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
Quote:
Perhaps your "gist" was to just dial 911 and wait for the infantry to arrive. The problem is that when some of these folks feel "wronged", they can go to great lengths to get even. Including throwing things through your windows or setting fire to your house. I suspect it's likely he accused the older man of "stealing" his crack pipe and made threats about getting it back, but that is only supposition.
It almost sounds as if you're advocating shooting someone for what they might do in the future.

The simple fact is that the shooter was safe in his home. Whether it took the police 3 minutes or 3 hours to arrive, he was not in any danger until he decided to leave the safety of his home and confront someone much younger who was likely high on crack.

Now someone is dead. The shooter may be charged with a crime. The BG may have friends who want to get even and the police probably have the shooter's gun. The homeowner may be suffering psychologically from having taken a life. For the life of me, I'm still not seeing any benefit for the shooter.
Donn_N is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:30 AM   #70
tmd11111
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: San Angelo, Tx
Posts: 275
The lesson learned here should be..
Crack Kills
tmd11111 is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:32 AM   #71
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
I can also tell you that if the criminal makes a move towards me while being confronted, he will be shot.
How would you articulate that your action had been immediately necessary?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:37 AM   #72
KingEdward
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
if I read the story right...

person trespassed onto homeowner's property with illegal drug device

person was asked to leave and he did leave.

person left his illegal drug device.

person came back angry wanting his illegal drug device

person was told to leave and chose to confront the homeowner.

The homeowner feared the drug user as he came towards him so the homeowner protected himself.

Can't criticize him.

Well, except for those who say they would have stayed inside and called police.

That was an option but I think the homeonwner was consistent and
the trespassing drug user is the aggressor here.
KingEdward is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:41 AM   #73
verti89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Posts: 157
Well after reading all the comments and doing some more searching around. There still is not a whole lot of details that I can find. BUT I did read that another neighbor claims they confronted this same kid with a gun and he laughed at them. The neighborhood had had a varying degree of crime including dogs being poisoned etc. There also seems to be a good deal of racial tension in the area, and of course the family claims their boy was an angel. The sister said something like I dont know what he was doing over there but he was probably just defending himself. What? well even if he was defending himself, he wouldn't have had to if he hadn't been trespassing.

After some time thinking about it I still find myself about where I was yesterday when I first read it. If I see anyone I do not recognize on my property (a average house in a quiet neighborhood), and who is not obviously a cable guy type, I am going to make sure I have my pistol in hand and, without displaying the pistol, ask them what they are doing. If I catch the person already engaged in some sort of mischief, breaking into my car or garage, I am calling the cops first, then probably yelling out that the cops have been called and watching from inside. HOPEFULLY the guy runs off without taking anything. How I react if I see him taking something depends on what it is he is taking and honestly I don't know how I would react. I think the best thing would be to just let him have whatever it is he is taking and then go from there, and really anything outside my home isn't worth getting into a confrontation with someone over.

HOWEVER, one I am a 25 year old in reasonable condition not a 70 year old oxygen tank toting gramps. Two I am not a frustrated citizen who has been taking it from the BGs for some time. That DOES change things. On one hand the guy is 69 and should have the sense to not confront a 17 year old. On the other I can understand an older man being tired of being disrespected and going out to yell at the young man. Once that decision was made a second time it would have been foolish NOT to go out with some sort of weapon. (Im not saying this was the right decision, just saying confronting someone, especially for a second time, unarmed is an even worse decision)

It would appear at this point that we know the young man was unarmed, but there is no way the shooter would have known this. AND if you suspect a guy is a crackhead AND he has returned after being told to leave AND he decides to come back at you after seeing your gun, I think it would be downright foolish NOT to assume he was armed.

I feel for the young mans family, but I also don't begrudge the old man for anything. Would I have probably stayed inside, yes, would it have been better if he stay in side, probably. But the way I look at this, he didn't shoot the young man for trespassing or even stealing. He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.
verti89 is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:51 AM   #74
Donn_N
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
Quote:
He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.
If that's the way it happened. I'm not claiming it didn't. I'm just saying there don't appear to be any witnesses and no security cameras to contradict the story.
Donn_N is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 08:53 AM   #75
skydiver3346
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,222
All these shootings lately:

Its starting to get to me a little when I read about all these shootings lately. In most every single case, the bad guy who gets shot ends up being the "victim" for some reason. In not one of these incidences did I see or read where the good guys started ANYTHING. They were minding their own business (either working or at home) and the thugs either came in brandishing a weapon and making threats or came on the personal property of the "real victim" and somehow threatend them, etc.

Sure, maybe the good guys sometimes over reacted but none of us where there and in "their shoes" at the time. Also, who is to say that they really over reacted anyway. We know what we read in the paper or see on some video that is not 100% totally convincing. Sometimes just calling the police (as a lot of you have suggested) is not always the best solution. Especially if law enforecement is a long ways off at the time or location.

Bottom line: If you start something and/or engage in a criminal activity against law abiding citizens, "then you will have to face the consequences for your actions and decisions", Period!
skydiver3346 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18492 seconds with 7 queries