But he was only trying to get some school clothes...

[Hieronymus]

Then here's a few more for good measure:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-as-he-fled-her-home-should-she-be-charged/

http://www.wsvn.com/story/31443550/...tion-with-homeowner-during-suspected-burglary

So if you don't believe small media outlets, and you don't trust big media outlets, then where exactly do you get information from???

Good question...
But i said "it still could be false".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm a bit more comfortable with that link. Though while the details are vague, the family might have a decent claim that the shooting was unwarranted. According to the story, the home owner was alerted to a break in and came home to find the kid leaving house, and then a confrontation of some sort ensued after which the thief was shot.

Depending on exactly what happened, it might not be a justified shooting. If it's a case of the homeowner comes home to see the thief leaving the house, tries to apprehend him, thief runs and is shot; then I would say the shooting was not justified. The homeowner wasn't in danger and deadly force was not required.

If it was a case of the home owner gets into a tussle with the thief, and shoots in the middle of the tussle, then that's a more justified shooting.

It really depends on a wide variety of factors in these home invasion/shooting cases.

Essentially, bad judgment from both parties can continue to escalate, as soon as party A escalates it to the point of physical violence, party B is considered justified in shooting the other person. Right or wrong, that's how the law works in most states.

For example, if I'm in a restaurant, I can keep talking trash to you and provoking you, and you get so fed up with it that you eventually come over and shove me on the ground and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] your fist back, at that split second, according to "stand your ground" laws, I have no duty to retreat and would be justified in using a firearm to defend myself... and the events that transpired in the 5 minutes leading up to that of are of no consequence under the law.

I know many people have issues with that and don't like that law, however, it is what it is. it's the reason why Zimmerman got off the hook in the other Treyvon shooting case.


Without knowing the precise details of what happened in the house, we don't know for sure if that line of logic applies to this case.

My main objection to this was the family trying to twist it around to make it sound like "our precious little angel just wanted some clothes to wear to school, it's tough being poor, that's not his fault...he loved education and school"

When my stance is, if you want some new clothes, sell the bling and buy some:

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would have done the same as you in this situation.

Based on the WashingtonPost article I linked:
Apolice statement said she “arrived prior to the officers and began to inspect the exterior of the home, when a confrontation occurred with the burglar. The homeowner produced a firearm and shot the subject.”

So the homeowner could be justified.

I know if I got alerted that a break in had occurred, I'd be heading straight home to inspect everything and to be there for when the police arrived. (and to meet with my insurance agent)

In this case, it didn't sound like she went hunting in her house for him. She was inspecting the exterior when the confrontation occurred. If this happened on the exterior, then it's reasonable to think that if he didn't want any sort of physical confrontation, he would've just bailed through the backyard when he saw her car pull into the driveway. he was a 17 year old boy, she's a woman in her fifties...odds are, he can run faster.

It sounds like, to me at least, that she got home, and he decided to escalate things rather than flee the property.

 

[Hank77]

It sounds like, to me at least, that she got home, and he decided to escalate things rather than flee the property.

Yes, it really depends on what that confrontation looked like.
I know I am not about to take someone's life unless they physically attack me or someone else. Even then it would depend on what they were doing and if they had a weapon.

 

[Hieronymus]

AAAAaaaaanyway, a kid died because he was trespassing.
Either way, that's rather harsh.... (it's ridiculous i.m.o.).
If the lady is found not guilty she has executed the death penalty for trespassing.

You can understand how i as a European shake my head about the lack of gun control / the legality of using a gun by citizens.

 

[trunks2k]

If the lady is found not guilty she has executed the death penalty for trespassing.

Maybe. While I don't disagree that using deadly force for trespassing or protecting property isn't right, it depends on what happened in regards to the confrontation. If it became a physical confrontation, she could have reasonable fear for her life.

As for what the Uncle said.... Family tries to downplay and rationalize the activity of an assumingly loved member of the family, news at 11. I also wonder what exactly was asked. If the question was "why was he robbing her?" then an answer that essentially boils down to "because there's no opportunity here and that's how kids around here see as the only way to make any money" is a fairly reasonable response, even if he's blind to certain aspects of his nephew.

 

[Hieronymus]

Maybe. While I don't disagree that using deadly force for trespassing or protecting property isn't right, it depends on what happened in regards to the confrontation. If it became a physical confrontation, she could have reasonable fear for her life.

Hmmm...
We're talking about killing a fellow human being....

 

[seashale76]

AAAAaaaaanyway, a kid died because he was trespassing.
Either way, that's rather harsh.... (it's ridiculous i.m.o.).
If the lady is found not guilty she has executed the death penalty for trespassing.

You can understand how i as a European shake my head about the lack of gun control / the legality of using a gun by citizens.

This is not trespassing. It's breaking and entering (i.e. unlawful intruding) with burglary and then robbery (once the victim was present and the perpetrator escalated the situation).

While I personally wouldn't have got a gun out in this situation, I have trouble with the victim blaming going on in your post. I get tired of seeing people constantly making excuses for and taking up for criminals. Only a fool would assume that they wouldn't be shot breaking into someone's home. I'll say this: If I was in my home and someone broke into my house then the gun would come out. I've heard stories from people I know that have friends and family that have been killed by home invaders. I would not simply sit around and hope for the best.

 

[Hieronymus]

So who exactly is the victim here?
Eye for an eye, both cry or die...

 

[seashale76]

So who exactly is the victim here?
Eye for an eye, both cry or die...

The criminal was a victim of his own poor life choices. The home owner, once the criminal confronted her, may have actually had a reasonable fear for her life and was then justified to use deadly force. It's for the courts to decide at this point.

This is why when you conceal carry, they make sure to tell you your rights under the law, but then they reiterate that you need to be aware that you'd better be very sure your life is being threatened before you ever pull your firearm out. Otherwise, you will be held accountable. Once someone is actually in your home though, and you're also in it, then the law is pretty much on the home owner's side. It's way less ambiguous.

 

[Hieronymus]

The criminal was a victim of his own poor life choices.

O, sorry, i didn't know you knew him.

And the shooter? Didn't choose to shoot?

 

[abysmul]

So who exactly is the victim here?
Eye for an eye, both cry or die...

The victim is the person that had their private property violated, their home invaded, and their possessions and security endangered. Clearly.
Don't want shot when trespassing, breaking and entering, and burglarizing? Don't do those things. It's really simple.

 

[Hieronymus]

The victim is the person that had their private property violated, their home invaded, and their possessions and security endangered. Clearly.

And the one that died isn't?
Are you sane?

 

[seashale76]

The victim is the person that had their private property violated, their home invaded, and their possessions and security endangered. Clearly.
Don't want shot when trespassing, breaking and entering, and burglarizing? Don't do those things. It's really simple.

No. You're supposed to let these people just break into your home and do whatever they please, even up to killing you and your family. If you defend yourself with deadly force then you're more wrong than the criminal (I'm sorry- true victim).

/sarcasm

 

[abysmul]

And the one that died isn't?
Are you sane?

Victim of their own bad choices and stupidity.

 

[trunks2k]

Hmmm...
We're talking about killing a fellow human being....

Yes, and if I have good reason to think that fellow human being is going to imminently kill or do greatly injure me, then I'm justified in using potentially deadly force to protect myself.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, it really depends on what that confrontation looked like.
I know I am not about to take someone's life unless they physically attack me or someone else. Even then it would depend on what they were doing and if they had a weapon.

...and For fully grown men, it's a little different scenario in terms of what constitutes a serious bodily threat to us.
(An unarmed 17 year old petty thief wouldn't put me in any serious bodily harm)

However, in this scenario, it was a woman in her mid-50's. It's very possible that a 17 year old male presents a serious risk in that scenario.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I have a HUGE problem with the family's statement that he needed school clothes and that's why he chose to commit a B&E and burglary. Where were they when he needed clothes? It's a shame the kid was killed. I don't think deadly force was justified in this case as I don't think the woman herself was in any physical danger from this. Two wrongs don't make a right and now we have a dead kid and a woman who may face murder charges (I have family in Miami).

There's a problem in our society. We have kids turn to crime just to get by because parents drop the ball, we have people who think nothing of taking a life. Both are wrong, both are an indication of the evil that permeates our society. Nobody needs a gun, nobody should think that shooting someone is the first, best thing to do. She got her house broken into...yes, that is a crime. However, things can be replaced. To answer that with taking a life was extreme and morally wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, and if I have good reason to think that fellow human being is going to imminently kill or do greatly injure me, then I'm justified in using potentially deadly force to protect myself.

According to the law of the jungle, indeed....

 

[Hieronymus]

No. You're supposed to let these people just break into your home and do whatever they please, even up to killing you and your family. If you defend yourself with deadly force then you're more wrong than the criminal (I'm sorry- true victim).

/sarcasm

Let's see what Jesus Christ would say about that...