Re: Trespassing Teens Shot - Did They Deserve It or Not ?


James Beck wrote:

You are still ignoring that FACTS OF THE CASE.
The girls were leaving and were no threat at the time he fired at the
car. I believe that we have the right to protect ourselves, family,
friends, AND property, BUT you have to temper that right with a little
common sense. Running out an firing at a car that is leaving when there
was no threat to himself or his property is not right. If you think it
is you had better crawl back in the closet, shine up that gun while
muttering to it, "Just wait til those punks try something like that
around here......" It is that kind of stupid *** that makes the rest
of the country look like a bunch of trigger happy dumbasses.

Everyone here is ignoring the FACTS of the case. Hey. The shooting
took place a YEAR AGO! The guy (40 years old and weird, but NOT a
geezer) was eccentric and in fact family had history of mental
instability and calls to police being ignored. Doesn't every
neighborhood have some "spooky" old house that kids love to harass the
eccentric owner?

But in Ohio you aren't allowed to shoot trespassers UNLESS you have
REASONABLE fear your life is in danger. Police determined that in this
case the teens didn't even make it as far as the "no trespassing"
signs so trespassing did NOT occur. Plus they were retreating. The
fact that the home owner claimed he feared they might be armed was not
shown viable by evidence. Just being scared is NOT a valid reason to
shoot in Ohio! You have to have a REASON to be scared.

Plus, in Ohio all shooting cases go to the grand jury (police as well
as citizen) to determine the reasonableness of fears etc. Note that
the girl was crippled by the bullet NOT killed! Everyone commenting on
this issue seems so used to lying and exaggerating for political
purposes that nobody can "handle" the truth anymore.

So did the shooter "overreact"? Well what did the judge and jury
say? Duh. How about 19 years in the slammer. Sounds like a decent
sentence for over-reaction to me. No doubt this "recluse" learned his
gun law from TV or Hollywood rather than the local pistol club! But I
doubt that any in the entertainment "industry" is willing to step up
and take some responsibility for the mis-information they constantly
spew at the public.

But since the gun-grabbers love to deal with hypothetical cases. Note
that had the kids been armed or reasonably thought so (I'm reminded of
the kid shot stealing hub caps who was shot and killed by police
because he had a vacuum cleaner part in his hand that was mistaken for
a gun) then shooting at them IN PLACE would have been legal. But
firing at FLEEING kids would ONLY be legal if they had just committed
a felony that you had witnessed. Otherwise, spraying a car full of
people with rifle bullets gets you... well, how about 19 years in
stir. But maybe if he's lucky he'll get "solitary" and then prison
will be like a hotel rather than punishment! :)

So did the kids "deserve" to be shot? Clearly facts show they did not.
Did the shooter deserve to go to jail? Clearly he did. Does this mean
that no one should ever have a gun or use it for self-defense? Does
it mean if the local biker gang shows up some night and starts kicking
in your door and sets your garage on fire, that you have no right to
shoot them or even fire a hail of bullets at them as they speed away?
{note kicking in your door shows intent to do bodily harm and setting
a fire is a felony} No, it does NOT mean that you can't shoot.

Anti-gun theories are about knee-jerk responses to situations. Real
firearm self-defense is about reasoned measured responses to real
threats to your safety and life.

.

Loading