Skip to main content

View Diary: Drunk Teen Fatally Shot For Entering His Neighbor's Home Thinking It Was His Home (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  true - the shooter's story sounds fishy (8+ / 0-)

    The boy didn't stop coming up the stairs when some man FIRED A GUN and tells him to stop??

    Who did he think the man firing a gun was? His father?

    How drunk would you have to be to not find it odd that your father is shooting a gun at you?

    No matter how drunk you are, wouldn't somebody FIRING A GUN at you and telling you to stop make you stop?

    I don't buy the account of the shooter.

    •  well, if he's that drunk, it may not have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      made a difference.

      We don't know how far along he was--but rationality does tend to go out the window.

      •  THAT drunk is beyond falling-down-on-your-ass (5+ / 0-)

        forget-your-name drunk.

        I've been falling-down-on-my-ass-forget-my-name drunk. I've never been so drunk that a gunshot wouldn't make me freeze. The most I would do is fall down on my ass.

        Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

        by journeyman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:42:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well he was drunk enough to not know it was his (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, noway2

          house.  

          •  True. But that ain't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul1a

            someone-just-shot-a-gun-that-doesn't-mean-anything drunk.

            Which in my humble opinion is somewhere beyond

            I'm-really-drunk-but-not-so-drunk-that-I-can't-break-into-another-person's-house drunk.

            The story related here is that a young man, successfully broke into someone's house, and still didn't have the brains to be afraid of a gunshot.

            Burden of proof lies with that story.

            Null hypothesis is that that story doesn't add up.

            Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

            by journeyman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:17:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Honestly, the burden of proof does not exist with (0+ / 0-)

              the homeowner, at all, when an intruder is shot inside the home.  

               Someone broke into their home and unless state law proves otherwise, the homeowner is not required to investigate who the person is, why they are there or any other means to then decide if the intruder has a right to be breaking into their home at 2am.  They have a right to defend their life and/or property with lethal force....again, unless state law proves otherwise.  

              A warning shot is also not required, I am almost certain.  

      •  Advantage of a dog (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul1a, journeyman

        I'm at the very least skeptical of the story, but there are doubtless some states of mind in which someone wouldn't understand a gun but their hindbrain would know what a snarling predator meant.

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:58:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know about not understanding a shot. (0+ / 0-)

          But a snarling predator, well, that I concur is beyond even a shot.

          Hell, I once ran into a snorting deer, stone cold sober, on a dark night on a country road. Honestly, I don't know which of us was more scared.

          Anyone with any sense is always at least respectful and probably afraid of wild animals.

          Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

          by journeyman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:49:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So.....he has just bidded his time until (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control, gerrilea, noway2

      someone broke into his home in the middle of the night, so that he could continue with his nefarious plan?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:17:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never said he had a nefarious plan. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, Paul1a

        All I said was that we don't know which shot he fired first. For all I know, he was terrified at the time he shot the boy. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have the presence of mind to put one in the ceiling before he called the cops.

        Moreover, I'm NOT saying that he is lying.

        But I am saying that is that I think he hasn't met the burden of proof, and that his story is of such a nature that that burden does and should lie on him.

        Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

        by journeyman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:11:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What benefit would there be from shooting a (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, noway2

          hole in the ceiling afterwards?

          An unknown person broke into his house in the middle of the night. That is a reasonable reason to fear for one's life. He has no responsibility to shoot his ceiling.

          "burden of [proof] lies on him"
          Nevermind that there isn't a Judge, Jury or Cop that wouldn't consider this a case of self-defense.....you are actually demanding that one is guilty until proven innocent.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:20:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand both perspectives here, really. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            You enter my home in the middle of the night and I shoot you.  There is no warning shot needed, you shouldn't be in my home.  

            On the other hand, as the shooter, living in NYS, I may get arrested for discharging a firearm in a city.  So, to protect against these false charges, I then shoot the ceiling and say I warned the intruder first.  A "cover your ass" move.

            But your point that there is an assumption of guilt is soo absolutely true these days.  It's the frightening results of our police state, we're all guilty of something. We must be because bad things just don't happen to good people!


            "Had I not got pregnant, got married and needed that house with the 2 bedrooms, then that kid wouldn't have been breaking into my home that night."

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 01:23:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fair points all. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Paul1a

            But, when I say the burden of proof lies on him, I am obviously not speaking legally, but simply of logic. Were I in the jury I would probably vote to acquit. I don't know, I'd have to hear more, but I don't think this was premeditated and I don't think the man was not scared. It's just that I think he's full of shit. His story doesn't pass the smell test.

            What advantage would there be to shooting a hole in the ceiling?

            Well, it makes your story better, doesn't it? That's an advantage.

            Once again, I do not deny that he legitimately thought himself in danger when he shot the boy. I highly doubt that he thought "oh here's that little prick from two doors down, I never liked that kid and now's my chance to kill him." I am reasonably sure that he's miserable and that he would do just about anything to have that shot back. I'm just saying that firing a warning shot would pretty much discourage even the drunkest of drunks. Even if he still thought it was his own house, at the very least I would expect him to hit the dirt (or at least fall on his ass) and say "what the fuck, Dad?"

            Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

            by journeyman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 05:31:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You would never have to be on a jury (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2

              because this would never go to trial.
              If one cannot act in self defense when someone breaks into someone's home in the middle of the night, then there would be no criteria for self defense.
              Your theory makes no sense.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:32:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site