Boy shot while tp'ing mans home - Page 3

w_houle · October 15, 2008, 12:50 PM

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?

Brian Pfleuger · October 15, 2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

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

See previous post by Daugherty16! +1

PT111 · October 15, 2008, 01:06 PM

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 · October 15, 2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

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 · October 15, 2008, 01:10 PM

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

Delaware_Dan · October 15, 2008, 01:34 PM

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

Playboypenguin · October 15, 2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

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....000009.00.htm

Hondo11 · October 15, 2008, 02:35 PM

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 · October 15, 2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

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 · October 15, 2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

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 · October 15, 2008, 03:04 PM

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 · October 15, 2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

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

October 15, 2008, 12:50 PM	#51
w_houle Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,391	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? __________________ How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

October 15, 2008, 01:10 PM	#55
w_houle Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,391	I missed that post. Wordy, but good. Didn't get the GBH thing though. __________________ How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

October 15, 2008, 01:06 PM	#53
PT111 Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2007 Posts: 1,041	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.

October 15, 2008, 01:34 PM	#56
Delaware_Dan Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2008 Posts: 1,304	I would have shot the kid in the ass with a paintball gun, watched him run away, and called it a night.

October 15, 2008, 02:35 PM	#58
Hondo11 Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2008 Posts: 120	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.

October 15, 2008, 03:04 PM	#61
Hondo11 Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2008 Posts: 120	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.