Glad this kid could protect himself. I will say that I'm a bit leery about an average 13 year old having easy access to a handgun but it sounds like he was prepared for the situation. One thing that occurred to me is shouldn't he have been in school?

He could have been home sick, had early dismissal, or a teacher work day.

... justifies gun violence.

Woohoo!!

No. Not the only choices.

But you probably defend the cops who pull this, too. All in the name of being safe from perceived threats.

I'd love to live in this kumbuya world but I live in reality that not everyone is good and wholesome.

A mature discussion seems impossible in this case.

Kid did the right thing. None of this would have happened if those two hadn't decided to commit a crime.

How many people who are (hypothetically) trying to break down your back door, would you consider a "perceived non-threat"?

Your stance is flat out disgusting.

A kid kills someone he doesn't know because they are rattling his back door. And I'm disgusting.

We have now entered the aggressive insult stage.

Am I a threat to you yet? When do you tell me that you will kill me if you perceive me as a threat? It's coming, I just want to know when.

The only good home invader, rapist or carjacker is a dead or dying one.

An intruder is not necessarily a threat, but killing him permanently ends the reason to ask questions.

Would it have been as cool if, when they returned fire, the boy was killed, too?

How about a link showing that the home invader didn't have a history of brutality?

The only thing being attacked was the door. The kid had no concept of who these people were; no idea they had a criminal record, which, in the case of the man he slaughtered, did not include a history of brutality.

Such bullshit to justify a senseless killing.

Numerous incidents of doors being assaulted and the assailants leaving after beating the doors half to death.


Do you read the stuff you write?

So many people feel that any perceived threat is worthy of death even when a huge array of alternatives exist.

How willing are you to discuss the alternatives that the home invaders had, to making themselves a threat?


My guess:

Not so much.

If you're not in fear for your life during a home invasion, something is very wrong with you.
Such an event is precisely why the use of lethal force in self-defense is vital to a free society.

I feel very sorry for folks that are unable to understand freedom and rights.

"Brown had been previously convicted of unlawful carrying of a weapon, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and six felony charges related to drugs. Bennett was convicted of manufacturing and distributing a controlled substance, assault with intent to kill, pointing a firearm at a person,..."

So Brown had a conviction of an unlawful weapon. What kind of weapon could he have that would NOT be brutal if he used it, perhaps as part of his trespassing, disorderly conduct, or felony drug charges? Please tell. Also, he was breaking in with Bennett who had assault with intent to kill and pointing a firearm convictions. Once again, please tell me how Bennett did not use brutality during his assault TO KILL act which led to a conviction and how he might have used the firearm he pointed in a non-brutal method.

Senseless killing? No. The 13 year old getting murdered would have been senseless. There is a world of sense to killing someone while defending yourself in your own home from two men with weapon's convictions and one with an assault to kill (but without brutality of course).

I'm concerned with the kid's emotional state after being forced to kill to defend himself. You're concerned with your hatred of guns even to the point of defending two guys caught in the act of a home invasion carrying a gun and using that gun.

Do you actually read the nonsense you type?

Are you for real? Or is this satire?

And there could have been any number of reasons, I have zero concern for the fact that he shot and killed a person who already had felony convictions and was attempting to break into someone else's house and steal their stuff. And even if the dead guy had zero criminal history I have no problem with this kid shooting him. This is very simple - if you don't want to get shot then don't try to break into someone's house. And there's no way for the kid to know if the guy was "necessarily a threat" -- relatively recently here in DC someone broke into a house, tied up the father, mother, child and housekeeper and then beat them to death. Again, your risk of getting shot is significantly lower if you decide NOT to attempt to rob someone. I am constantly amazed at the posters who excuse criminal behavior.

We disagree 100%.

Breaking into a home is of itself a violent crime.

For the price of a shotgun you can secure your home enough to keep most bad guys out. Most crooks do not want to draw attention. If it takes more than a few kicks to break down a door they move on. Same with windows. A fire arm should always be the last choice.

George Zimmerman as that is what he said.

Seems some rather relish the prospect; after all, if they can't get much property, they can find get other -- you know -- rewards.

but in this case, the firearm apparently was the last resort.

...you have no earthly idea of what those two were after. Once they began breaking into the home, there is no reason to assume they weren't willing to resort to violence. You might elect to default to the assumption that they were only after possessions and would not commit violence, but there is certainly no ethical mandate to do so. In such situations, faced with a significant probability of grave injury and no possible way to determine the intentions of the threatening parties, using force is a reasonable response. That's not prioritizing possessions over human life, it's prioritizing your human life over that of someone presenting a credible threat.

Moreover, although it can have no bearing on the boy's decision-making process, in hindsight he acted correctly: these men turned out to be armed (indicating willingness to use deadly force) and possessed long felony records, one of which(ironically, the one who lived to face life in prison) definitely included violent crimes.

You're spectacularly under-qualified.

A sentence that describes the proper approach to dealing with someone attempting to break into your house. Should you shoot to kill and sort it out later?

It seems to me I nailed it, but feel free to correct me.

My one and only DGU, and I hope it stays that way. No shots fired. None needed.

However, the situation I faced wasn't one in which I had to make an instant decision: fairly clear view (it was dark outside, but plenty of ambient light) of a single person in the process of prying open the sliding glass window of my dining area, with no way for him to see me first. I could have legally opened fire: Oregon law permits the use of deadly force against someone trying to break in to an occupied building - they don't have to be inside). But I realized he probably thought no one was home, as it was pretty early in the evening and no lights on that were visible from outside. Deep breath to calm down...flicked on the dining room light. The guy looks up and sees a pistol pointed at him. He spun around and hauled ass over the back fence. Took a while to get to sleep that evening...

Why didn't I fire, despite being legally permitted to do so? Because there was no need to do so. The guy couldn't get to me quickly, as he hadn't gotten the window open and would still have had to climb through (not that hard, as it's a big window, but still would have taken time). I could see both of his hands pretty well even before the light came on, so I could have seen him reach for a weapon had he done so. I have zero interest in shooting anyone who doesn't present a clear and present danger.

Now had there been a lot of lights on and every reason to believe the house was occupied? I don't think that would have changed my reaction...but I'd have been a lot more ready to fire. Someone breaking into a house they believe is occupied, even if their prior intent was only robbery, presents a real danger to a small female who lives alone.

Yeah, I realize I'll probably get a "cool story, bro" for this, but nothing I can do about that. This incident had one very useful benefit: I know I won't freak out in such a situation - or at least ones like this, with enough time to carefully consider my response. I'm a bit of a cold fish, emotionally (I'm wired a bit funny), so I kind of assumed I'd be okay...but no one can never know that until such a situation actually arises.

PS: I was tempted not to answer due to your rather insulting (and a bit sad) use of "word salad." Sorry, but there was nothing unclear or obfuscatory about what I wrote. Perhaps you have me confused with jimmy the one. Then again, I didn't really think you were here to actually discuss anything, but this latest response to me made me question that assumption. So a completely genuine "thanks" for that...

"word salad", maybe it's YOU who has the problem?

There was nothing in that reply that was incoherent, rambling or anything else that would qualify it as "word salad". Perhaps, in the future, you should look up the definition of words that you use before you use them so you don't make yourself look so... ummm.... uneducated. Do you have a problem with well thought-out, precise, educated answers??

Do ya want we shuld start ta usin' real small werds fer u kin reed em better? If not, please point out, exactly, where this "word salad" began.

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

And do not think that any criminal has a right to break into someone's home, or attempt to do so, and steal the items someone worked for. I am a firm believer in the castle doctrine, and if a 13 year old shoots a criminal attempting to break into the home then I have no problem with it. Again, when you commit crimes that involve entering someone else's home or threatening another then you drastically increase the chances you will be shot and if you are shot have nobody to blame but yourself. Quit trying to excuse the criminal and instead hold him accountable.

Would you feel differently if the guy who was shot was a murderer or rapist? Was the 13 year old supposed to ask "hey, criminal guy breaking into my home, are you here to rape me, because if so I'm going to shoot you but if you just want to take all our stuff then I'm ok with that"?

However, people die needlessly because of this.

since it is inside the home. Outside the home, it vs duty to retreat only matters if you can retreat safely without putting yourself in danger. The fact that he was 13 and the guys kicking in the door were adults that outnumbered him, would make that irrelevant. Only a few jurisdictions in the US expect you to retreat from your home. In fact, duty to retreat in general is pretty much uniquely US. What makes it legal is that the kid was facing, or had a objectively belief that he was facing, immediate death or grave bodily injury.

It's just that simple, really.

Here's a simple scenario, and question, for you:

Suppose you are sitting at home one night with your wife and daughter, minding your own business and watching TV. Suddenly, 2 armed men invade your home, tie you and your family up and begin ransacking your house. Not pleased with what they have found, they grab your wife and daughter and begin to viciously rape them.

Do YOU:
A- Tell your wife and daughter "it's okay honey, our possessions, and lives, don't matter as much as *their* lives do, so just lay there and give them what they want, and *maybe* they won't hurt us", or

B- Try your damnedest to get loose and try to stop the scumbags in the act, even if it costs you YOUR life in the process??

Speaking only for myself, They would have to kill me first because there is NO WAY IN HELL that I am going to sit passively by and watch my wife and daughter get raped. The scumbags probably plan on killing us all anyways, but I wouldn't see it, and wouldn't know it happened. My wife and daughter might see ME get killed, but they would KNOW it was because I was doing everything humanly possible to protect THEM.

Your mileage may vary...

Ghost

In the actual case, the kid could have run out the front door to the neighbors and called the police.

He had no idea who these people were. If it was a repair team at the wrong house, he would have been guilty of manslaughter.

protect him...

You don't "shoot to kill" or the stupid "shoot to wound". You only shoot to stop the threat.

If the criminal dies in the process, the law says it's on them, not the person in their own home minding their own business.

And all the whining about those poor, poor career criminals who "might have, could have" just been selling magazine subscriptions or collecting for the local newspaper.

But the good news is ... you get to make a choice for you and your family and the rest of us get to make ours.

But be sure and let the kids know that trying to forcefully open somebody else door while armed and with a criminal record in the middle of the night, or any other time, can be bad for your health and career path.

That's what cops say they're doing when they kill people running away or kill unarmed scary black men. "I was threatened."

That excuse, thank God, is slowly losing it's validity.

If self defense ever loses its "validity", I'm pretty sure the people that can't effectively defend themselves will be the first to go.

And considering that gun control keeps getting its ass handed to it in court, at the ballot box and in the legislature, not to mention any serious national polls. Nobody is holding their breath for it.

But we all know, "the tide is turning" and we better "all get ready for more gun control" and "an Australian Style confiscation is coming". LoL.

Been hearing that for 20 years with no sign of it ever coming to pass, but keep wishing and checking out the antique shops for one of those magic lamps, that's your best chance.

And if they actually get inside, I'm in mortal danger.

And if its me or them, then I'll do everything I can to ensure it isn't me.

Why do you have such a problem understanding that?

We can tell from your previous comment:

That is precisely what you just said.

Do I have sympathy for the boy? No. He chose a path and followed it.

Sympathy for the dead guy? Not much, but more than for the boy who knowingly and willingly killed someone.

Kill, kill, kill. Rationalize it away, and try to garner sympathy. I'll pass.

Thanks for playing, and have a nice day! I don't waste my time on people who defend, and mollycoddle, criminals.

Peace,

Ghost

Fuck, I hate debating gun freaks. They're as bad as anti-abortion advocates.

Irrational, ignoring facts, violently emotional, running on some mysterious and invisible faith based "logic", with a ""because" rationale and imagining a mystical change that will take over all the people in the country in the near future.

Just like them that magical transformation never quite seems to show up.

You see, my friend, this is EXACTLY why debating you is a waste of time.

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

You think that you can just come into a thread and spin-characterize two armed criminals with records of violence and significant crime, engaging in a home invasion and being defended against by a kid as "kid kills someone he doesn't know because they are rattling his back door", and NOT be perceived as defending the criminals?

Really? REALLY?

I can't even begin to imagine the requisite mindset, necessary to be able to hold that belief

Will you be contributing to the defense fund for the surviving"innocent". After all he faces Felony Murder charges, and you KNOW he is innocent.

On one hand he claims:

with all kinds of excuses. The goofiest one was "what if they were a repair team at the wrong address?" So much wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin.

I used to install/repair cable tv in Miami, Fl back in the early 80's. The NUMBER 1 RULE was that you NEVER go into a customer's back yard without permission. Period! You knocked on the FRONT DOOR and, if you didn't get an answer after several attempts & waiting 15 - 20 minutes, you hung a "Sorry we missed you" hanger on the door knob.

If the mother knew that the boy was going to be home, and was expecting a "repair team" ( ), don't you think that she would have told her son??

Here's the biggest part that our criminal coddler is overlooking, from the article:

Could have been shot in the back as he turned to run out the door as the guys burst through the back door.
Could have tripped on his way running away towards the front door and then was killed by the two guys.
Maybe didn't have a cell phone to call the police.
Ran out the front door, stopped to call the police, the cell phone light shows the bad guys who are now in the house and pursuing him where he is and they kill him.
Could have run out the front door, called the police, and then the cops show up and shoot the kid. Okay, this one only applies if the kid was black.

The kid was 13 and literally faced a life and death decision and had a couple of seconds to make a choice.

Your reply "Do I have sympathy for the boy? No. He chose a path and followed it."

Meanwhile, two crooks with multiple convictions for guns and violent crime get at least one gun and decide to kick their way into a house.

"Sympathy for the dead guy? Not much, but more than for the boy who knowingly and willingly killed someone."

You mentioned the anti-abortion type of argument. Interesting, as anti-abortion are so pro life that they are willing to blow up innocent bystanders to prove their love of life. You have openly stated in a public forum that you care more for the violent armed criminals engaged in a home invasion more than the THIRTEEN year old victim.

You have no moral standing to be talking to anybody about anything.

It acceptable to use lethal force in self defense? Or should victims always depend on the mercy of their attackers?

In the legal system, he will be held harmless.

Regardless, my original statement stands.

When is it acceptable to use lethal force in self defense?

Do you like DU or just like asking rhetorical questions?

I answered your question. Ask another or move on.

You say this case is not justified. You implied the child should face criminal charges and punishment.

I am asking if you believe there is ever a situation where lethal force is justified. If the answer is yes, maybe give some very general indicators of what such a situation may be.

If you believe lethal force is never justified, then just say so.

I am under no obligation to keep responding to you to please you.

This isn't some sort of sanctuary for you where you can threaten to ban me if I don't play according to your rules.

I'm done with you for now.

Thank you for that response, it made my morning

I never have suggested you be banned or silenced; to the contrary, I am encouraging you to speak. Yet there is a group that operates just as you describe...

As for my question and how you responded I can infer the answer is no. Your belief is lethal force is not justified and victims should depend on the attack's mercy rather than resist.

I agree with you completely there. Our most powerful argument is their speech.

Hoq those who oppose self defense are so unwilling to state their position. If I am asked where I stand, on any issue, I will answer straight. No need to be mealy mouthed or duck the question; and if I am unsure I will state that also. There is no shame in admitting being undecided.

Yet ask about self defese and people give half answers, deflect or, ironically, get very defensive. I actually admire true pacifists who are willing to say they would die before harming another. That is true commitment to your beliefs. I respect that, even though my choice is different.

Or lack there of.


Its a fundamental intangible that separates us from them, and a huge part of the reason why we win.

I assume it's intentional.

You never did answer the question he asked.

Pointing to an answer to a question he didn't ask, as if its an answer to a question he DID ask, is dishonest and disingenuous.

It's nice to hear stories where guns do actually save lives.


hate that the kid was put into the position of having to defend himself from being harmed, but at least there's a good outcome for the action.

for now.

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DGU
DGU Dansk Golf Union
DGU Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (German: German Society for Trauma Surgery)
DGU Defensive Gun Use
DGU Density Gradient Ultracentrifugation
DGU Double Glazed Unit (window)
DGU Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse (Denmark's Geological Survey)
DGU Disc Golf United
DGU Dead Good Undies
DGU Display Generator Unit
DGU Digital Gain Unit
DGU Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie eV (Duesseldorf, Germany)
DGU Dennis Gyomber Urology (Australia)
DGU Directeur Général Unique (French: Unique General Director)

This was a really risky move. He could have been shot dead when they returned fire.

Don't try this at home folks.

that is a very risky move. What the kid did involved less risk. What the kid should have done was go to a bedroom with a cell phone and gun, call 911 while setting up a defensive firing position in case the cops don't get there in time. Of course, one he calls 911, don't leave the room until cleared by the cops because you just turned it into a free fire zone.

That doesn't guarantee there weren't any in front.

Is that 'trying too hard', too?

did he see them drive by the front door? Doubt it. Is there a legal or moral obligation for him to leave the home? No. It would still be an unnecessary risk. If you are personally opposed defending yourself or your home, that's your business and right. What isn't your right or business is to expect others to die and be injured for what you believe in. The kid did nothing illegal nor immoral. Demanding that he not be allowed to defend himself, like the anti abortion zelots who are opposed to life and health of mother exemptions, is immoral.

Oliver Wendall Holmes put it best Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife

The story make no suggestion anyone was at the front door. If he did go to the front door and found someone there, he could have shot that person, assuming that person threatened him. But if there was no one there, and there obviously was no one there, he could have gotten the hell out of there and not gotten shot at like he was.

was, doesn't mean there wasn't. The kid had no way of knowing either way. Remember, everything has to be based on what the kid's perspective. Media reports are not the end all or be all of anything, nor do they include all relevant details. That is one reason I don't pay that much attention to them. He also didn't know that anyone would return fire.
Then again, assuming there wasn't anyone there and the attackers heard him go out the front door, then he would be vulnerable. I can picture this as likely if the house is, say, a single wide trailer or a shotgun house.
People react to the stress and base their decisions on what is front of them. He knows that more than anyone else. Maybe you would do the same in the exact same situation, maybe not. Assuming a motivation based on, not much, is really projection.

simply pointing out that little is known, but I do give my observations of the media and how it plays in investigations.

Not the other side of the (the same) story.

Start a thread about it, rather than trying to hijack this thread.

Oh, but that would mean not trying to hijack this one. Nevermind.

Different story.

The other side of the story in this case would be something that shows the two men were at the house for some plausibly benign reason.

The fact that in this incident a child defended himself does not change my opinion that there should still be safe storage laws. In this case however at the adult would not be charged as there would be an affirmative defense. In the story you reference the adult should be charged for negligence.

I don't believe it is a good idea for a 13 year old to have easy access to weapons when unsupervised. That doesn't change the fact that in this instance the child used a gun for protection in a manner that is legal. Pointing to a completely different outcome doesn't somehow diminish this one.

Frightening audio from a 911 call placed seconds after a 14-year-old boy shot both his parents reveals the teen had no idea why he killed them.

Alex Crain, now 15, is heard begging police to hurry to his family's home in Naples, Fla., in the audio, which was released Monday, according to Naples News.

"I was sleeping and the next thing I knew, I had a gun in my hand. And my parents were on the ground," he says.

Crain, who was charged as an adult and sentenced in April to more than 20 years in prison for manslaughter, told the dispatcher he didn't know what led to the killings.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-teen-killed-parents-sleeping-knew-gun-hand-article-1.1106898

You prefer this outcome? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/12/pastor-pregnant-wife-28-dies-after-being-shot-during-home-invasion/?intcmp=hplnws

with guns.

it would behoove you to start your own thread rather than try to jack this one.

It is sad to live in a world where some are so blinded by religious dogma that they are unable to see the light.

Beating them silly using their own statistics and talking points.

Watching someone with an empty argument declaring victory in a debate.

First you said it, then you did it.

Look, I'd rather have a real debate, but you've shown multiple times in this thread you have no interest in having one. You'd rather play games.

So don't complain when people play those games substantially better than you do.

Sorry I won't play, but you bring nothing but the same, tired bullshit.

As real debate generally ends in humiliation and embarrassment for your side. Proof of that exists in this thread, in every one of your dodges and every question you refuse to answer.

Your first post in this thread was filled with all kinds of negativity towards the boy who defended himself from a violent break in, and not a word about those doing the breaking in. And with every additional post your words became more shrill, and more nasty.

You're projecting, and apparently under the impression that you're invisible and nobody can see what you're doing.

Your mistake.

You think it requires religious dogma to not kill someone who is not posing a lethal threat to you?

Holy shit.

in every jurisdiction in the United States, and with astonishingly few exceptions, justifies lethal force in response.

You appear to object to virtually all American self-defense jurisprudence, and/or are so blinded by your hatred of firearms that you're past the point of rationale discussion of this particular story.

Luckily, almost no one, regardless of political persuasion, regrets what befell these two violent repeat felon home invaders. Similarly, almost everyone sympathizes with the awful but necessary choice of the boy to defend himself, and stories like this will further increase support for gun rights, particularly the right to keep a firearm in you home for self-defense.

Anyone forcing entry into my home, after being warned away, still decide to continue, IS a lethal threat. I *WILL* do my best to keep them from gaining entry into my home. I will succeed in this endeavor, by using modern semi-automatic, magazine fed firearms. If I am not here, my wife, and teenagers will do the same. If several are trying to force entry, we all, will work together to stop them. If more help is needed, our neighbors are all of the same outlook as me, and are properly equipped to help. We will not count on a violent felons benevolence, they will depend on OURS.... The locks on our doors, is for your protection, not ours......

We will turn "their chosen" point of entry into the second coming of Omaha Beach. They will have a short amount of time to reflect upon the utter and complete stupidity of their chosen life path. When the police finally make it out here, in out in the county, odds are they will have nothing to do but write a report.

This is not our problem, it is theirs..

The dogma I am talking about is the religious zeal that some blindly follow in their efforts to restrict my ability to defend my family's life. The ability to defend my family is not "up for debate" with ANYONE Just like you can't argue with bible thumpers, it is just as pointless to argue with most gun control advocates in their ivory towers, surrounded by armed guards.