Man kills teenager over early morning fireworks

ThatRobGuy said:

...yep, and now a kid is dead for a noise violation.

Guys like that are the people who need to be weeded out of being able to own firearms.

Far too many people get a gun, then all of the sudden think it's time to play neighborhood enforcer.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the crimes that do occur when you go out unarmed. One of which I just listed (which occurred here in Britain, where gang crime and gun crime is not as common as in the US).

Seriously, if you disagree, go out unarmed and be the next victim.

timewerx said:

Murder is evil.....But having fun at the expense of other people is also evil.

The teen's parents have also done evil by failing to teach him valuable lessons in life.

Ultimately, the fault is in failed parenting and the corrupt values of our money-worshipping society.

Click to expand...

Sorry, let's not dodge the actual issue here...

Yes, many things are evil...
No, not all evil is equal...

In this case, the person committing murder is more evil than kids committing a noise violation.

The fault isn't ultimately with the parents...kids are going to act out...always have, always will. The fault is with the person who thought that, because he got himself a gun, he's now some sort of authority figure who everyone has to obey "or else".

Inkfingers said:

You are ignoring the crimes that do occur when you go out unarmed. One of which I just listed (which occurred here in Britain, where gang crime and gun crime is not as common as in the US).

Seriously, if you disagree, go out unarmed and be the next victim.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between going out casually to a restaurant or to a store, and going out in the street, specifically with the intention of confronting someone who's committing a crime.

I have a concealed carry permit, I'm often armed when I go out. I don't go out specifically with the intention of "looking to bust heads and keep people in line" and use the threat of lethal force to "teach a lesson" and "put people in their place"

Aldebaran said:

Many people have a problem with that. They'll say instead of confronting someone yourself, you're bringing in someone who has guns and the authority to kill, and that if you do that, and the cop shoots the person you called them on, you're as guilty as the cop. Just can't win sometimes.

Click to expand...

Who's saying that?

Are you referring to the recent threads & stories people calling the cops on other people for stupid reasons? (like the lady who called the cop because someone had socks on in the pool)

I don't know of a single person who takes issue with someone calling police when there's an actual criminal activity occurring.

ThatRobGuy said:

There's a difference between going out casually to a restaurant or to a store, and going out in the street, specifically with the intention of confronting someone who's committing a crime.

Click to expand...

Garry Newlove, the man I linked the story to, went out to confront thugs who were vandalising his wife's car.

They beat him to death right there by his house.

Anyone who goes out unarmed is a fool.

Aldebaran said:

I don't remember who, but it I did get that reaction from someone here. There was a person who called the police on some kids that kept hitting his car with a ball they were throwing and someone here had an issue with calling in people with guns and the authority to kill. I'm of the opinion that the police are more than people with guns. They are also the ones who are trained in how to deal with people and have more authority than just some guy living nearby. Also, if you're someone who isn't socially good at dealing with people, it might be best to leave it to the police, lest you make a mess of the situation.

Click to expand...

If there is someone who holds that stance, I would openly disagree with them.

What I see when these cases pop up, is where certain folks will put political tribalism above all else, and defend a gun owner's actions (no matter how irrational) as a means to resist having to admit that maybe the other side has a bit of a valid point when it comes to needing a few additional restrictions for firearm ownership.

...because obviously anyone who's willing to admit that the guy in this story acted irrationally, is basically admitting that he's the kind of person who probably shouldn't have been armed in the first place, and the means to prevent people like him from being armed in the future is tightening up a few of our standards, which, even as a gun enthusiast and owner (I own everything from a basic Glock, all the way up to an AR with all the "scary" attachments), see as being far too lenient at the given time.

I know people in my own family who aren't the most rational people (who I've seen puff up their chests at the bar and try to start stuff with other people just because they're in "a mood") and some who are downright idiotic, but own firearms...and I have no qualms with saying that they're the type of people who should be screened out.

Inkfingers said:

Garry Newlove, the man I linked the story to, went out to confront thugs who were vandalising his wife's car.

They beat him to death right there by his house.

Anyone who goes out unarmed is a fool.

Click to expand...

Anyone who goes out to handle the situation themselves is a fool. Armed or not.

That's the point I'm making.

The average citizen has no legal right to try to physically reprimand anyone for committing any crime, if that crime doesn't involve their own, or someone else's physical safety. Property crime is not in that list. Me having a CCW permit doesn't mean that I'm suddenly allowed to play judge, jury, and executioner if I spot kids egging a house.

Not sure where you're getting this idea that you should have a right to "confront" people for things like vandalism and noise violations.

ThatRobGuy said:

Anyone who goes out to handle the situation themselves is a fool. Armed or not.

That's the point I'm making.

The average citizen has no legal right to try to physically reprimand anyone for committing any crime, if that crime doesn't involve their own, or someone else's physical safety. Property crime is not in that list. Me having a CCW permit doesn't mean that I'm suddenly allowed to play judge, jury, and executioner if I spot kids egging a house.

Not sure where you're getting this idea that you should have a right to "confront" people for things like vandalism and noise violations.

Click to expand...

You don't get it.

The police don't care.

You are lucky if they turn up 3 hours later. I had morons threaten me about 10 years ago, so I phoned the police and they said its not a high priority.

Inkfingers said:

You don't get it.

The police don't care.

You are lucky if they turn up 3 hours later. I had morons threaten me about 10 years ago, so I phoned the police and they said its not a high priority.

Click to expand...

You're operating on hypotheticals based on a negative experience you had.

First off, someone making physical threats against you is a different scenario than confronting kids who were lighting off fireworks. If you had a physical threat against you, then being armed when you go out is reasonable...I would be too. However, that's different than going out to confront people who were engaged in a non-violent offense.

Second, with regards to this story, did you read the article? The guy had tried to confront them multiple times, and then lied to police about them having a gun to justify his own story when cell phone video clearly showed that none of them were armed.

Basically, in this story, here's what happened.

He was mad that they were shooting off fireworks, "cuz gee whiz, I'm an adult and anyone under 30 should have to do as I say", so he went out to confront them.

When they didn't seem to care much for his orders to then, and just kept on doing what they were doing (but not harming him), that made him mad, so he went back and got a gun and came back. He was probably assuming "when those little so & so's see this, that'll scare them into listening to me", as made clear by the fact that the cell phone video shows him removing the firearm from the holster, brandishing it, pointing it, and then putting it back in the holster several time in an attempt to get them to obey him.

The video then shows the kid trying to leave, then the man with the gun following him continue to yell at him. Then Roche's father came out and started a shoving match with the kid, then that's when Roche shot him.

For someone who's actually in fear for their safety, you don't go out there multiple times, and you don't spend 8 minutes trash talking and brandishing and pointing a weapon at someone and then putting it back in the holster multiple times, and then you certainly don't follow the who you claim to be afraid of when they're trying to leave.

Nothing about this says that Roche was in any danger, and this was nothing more than him wanting to "teach punk kids a lesson", and he got mad when things didn't go his way, so he shot, and then lied to police when they came as the cell phone video proves.

Aldebaran said:

I had a problem where someone a couple home away was doing a lot of hammering and running loud power tools every single night between midnight and 4am. I don't know why nobody was calling the police on him, but I ended up doing so after about a week of putting up with it. Now the noise has stopped.

Some might say that I should have just went over there and kindly asked him to not do what he was doing at those times, but then I would be inviting him to argue with me, and maybe I'd even respond to that in a hostile way when I'm tired and being kept awake. Letting the police deal with it made sure it was dealt with in the right way.

Click to expand...

It's one thing if it's a neighbor, and you just want to walk over politely and ask them to stop what they're doing, or calling police if it's a notoriously difficult neighbor.

It's another thing to grab the gun and then go over there with a "you do what I say or else" attitude.

Sounds like you handled it the right way.

ThatRobGuy said:

You're operating on hypotheticals based on a negative experience you had.

Click to expand...

No, I'm quoting an ACTUAL murder that occurred here in the UK.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and if the police wont stop crime its up to the citizen to do so.

Inkfingers said:

No, I'm quoting an ACTUAL murder that occurred here in the UK.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and if the police wont stop crime its up to the citizen to do so.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you've been watching too many Charles Bronson movies...

Are you going to keep selectively quoting my posts and ignoring the main points?

I'm reposting this section so that you can address it:

First off, someone making physical threats against you is a different scenario than confronting kids who were lighting off fireworks. If you had a physical threat against you, then being armed when you go out is reasonable...I would be too. However, that's different than going out to confront people who were engaged in a non-violent offense.

Second, with regards to this story, did you read the article? The guy had tried to confront them multiple times, and then lied to police about them having a gun to justify his own story when cell phone video clearly showed that none of them were armed.

Basically, in this story, here's what happened.

He was mad that they were shooting off fireworks, "cuz gee whiz, I'm an adult and anyone under 30 should have to do as I say", so he went out to confront them.

When they didn't seem to care much for his orders to then, and just kept on doing what they were doing (but not harming him), that made him mad, so he went back and got a gun and came back. He was probably assuming "when those little so & so's see this, that'll scare them into listening to me", as made clear by the fact that the cell phone video shows him removing the firearm from the holster, brandishing it, pointing it, and then putting it back in the holster several time in an attempt to get them to obey him.

The video then shows the kid trying to leave, then the man with the gun following him continue to yell at him. Then Roche's father came out and started a shoving match with the kid, then that's when Roche shot him.

For someone who's actually in fear for their safety, you don't go out there multiple times, and you don't spend 8 minutes trash talking and brandishing and pointing a weapon at someone and then putting it back in the holster multiple times, and then you certainly don't follow the who you claim to be afraid of when they're trying to leave.

Nothing about this says that Roche was in any danger, and this was nothing more than him wanting to "teach punk kids a lesson", and he got mad when things didn't go his way, so he shot, and then lied to police when they came as the cell phone video proves.

This news makes me happy.

Inkfingers said:

You are ignoring the crimes that do occur when you go out unarmed. One of which I just listed (which occurred here in Britain, where gang crime and gun crime is not as common as in the US).

Seriously, if you disagree, go out unarmed and be the next victim.

Click to expand...

Everyone should go armed all the time. Nobody is safe unless everyone is pointing a gun at someone.

SummerMadness said:

A man confronted a teenage neighbor over early morning fireworks — then shot him to death, police say

Click to expand...

Texas City is no where near Austin.


JLB