Teenager Shot by Vigilante


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Teenager Shot by Vigilante

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next
Author Message
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,531,363
RAC: 4,819
Canada
Message 885745 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 6:30:05 UTC

I don't agree that the discussion was over.

I'm just throwing this out there to see if anyone wishes to continue posting their thoughts on the topic.

I'm more interseted in the legalities and morality of someone taking the law into their own hands, no matter what the level of frustration or degree of hearsay evidence within the area of the incident.

Shooting a kid for a minor property crime is over the top. There is no justification for such an act.

The fact that those who seemed to be defending the act of shooting the kid relied on hearsay evidence as partial reason tells me that they can find no legal precident to back their positions and must add filler to make their case.

Hearsay evidence is not pemitted in courtrooms for the very reason that stories are imbellished with each retelling.
Everyone feels the need to add something to the story to make it more compelling.


Profile RandyC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 885772 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 9:53:12 UTC - in response to Message 885745.

I don't agree that the discussion was over.

I'm just throwing this out there to see if anyone wishes to continue posting their thoughts on the topic.

I'm more interseted in the legalities and morality of someone taking the law into their own hands, no matter what the level of frustration or degree of hearsay evidence within the area of the incident.

Shooting a kid for a minor property crime is over the top. There is no justification for such an act.

Quite right. But the 'kid' wasn't shot for that, he was shot because he was 'charging' toward the individual. Whether that person was justified in being out there in the first place is another topic. I say give the kid a Darwin Award.


The fact that those who seemed to be defending the act of shooting the kid relied on hearsay evidence as partial reason tells me that they can find no legal precident to back their positions and must add filler to make their case.

Hearsay evidence is not pemitted in courtrooms for the very reason that stories are imbellished with each retelling.
Everyone feels the need to add something to the story to make it more compelling.



Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 885777 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 10:33:44 UTC - in response to Message 885772.
Last modified: 16 Apr 2009, 10:36:29 UTC

said the shooter, that is not an evidence yet, if ever, nor it gives him right to shoot. or will someone show me where in law it says it is ok to shoot charging kid, woman, dog , men? or parrot or hawk.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 885795 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 14:25:56 UTC

in Texas you can shoot someone if it appears its a life threatening situation. Period. If I feel my life is legitimately threatened yes I'd shoot. I'm sure I'd also spend a great deal of time defending that position in a grand jury room.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Clyde C. Phillips, III
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 00
Posts: 1851
Credit: 5,955,047
RAC: 0
United States
Message 885846 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 17:41:39 UTC

Depends on what the teenager was doing. If he were shooting at a crowd, take him down. If he were "going to the bathroom" in someones yard, absolutely not.
____________

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 885857 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 18:36:25 UTC - in response to Message 885777.

said the shooter, that is not an evidence yet, if ever, nor it gives him right to shoot. or will someone show me where in law it says it is ok to shoot charging kid, woman, dog , men? or parrot or hawk.


I believe the law reads something like this:

Self-defensive is allowed when one fears being assaulted with consequences of serious harm or death.
The level of response must match the threat, not exceed it.
The person about to take defensive steps has a duty to warn if it would seem to do any good.
One has the duty to retreat from assault if possible.
Use force, especially deadly force, only as a last resort.
If a “victim” uses excessive force they become the aggressor.
Force becomes excessive when it exceeds that needed to assure one’s own safety

Also:

Deadly force
In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger. However, self-defense resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian or civilians against an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12395
Credit: 6,704,796
RAC: 8,692
United States
Message 885881 - Posted: 16 Apr 2009, 19:34:20 UTC - in response to Message 885772.

I don't agree that the discussion was over.

I'm just throwing this out there to see if anyone wishes to continue posting their thoughts on the topic.

I'm more interseted in the legalities and morality of someone taking the law into their own hands, no matter what the level of frustration or degree of hearsay evidence within the area of the incident.

Shooting a kid for a minor property crime is over the top. There is no justification for such an act.

Quite right. But the 'kid' wasn't shot for that, he was shot because he was 'charging' toward the individual. Whether that person was justified in being out there in the first place is another topic.


This is correct. The other two kids who ran away and obviously didn't pose any threat weren't shot and if they were it would be first degree murder. The State must feel that the shooter was charged [about to be attacked by] the kid who was shot because they filed second degree charges not first degree. What the State doesn't believe is that the charge was of the nature that would have put a mythical "reasonable person" in fear for their life. It is up to the defense to show it could have put the defendant in fear for his life.

The reason the kid got shot was he ran at a person who had told him to stop and told him he had a gun. If it is was you or me, would you run at a person who has a gun pointed at you and has told you to stop? If you were the person with the gun, what would you think of a person who charges at you knowing you have a gun pointed at them? This is what the jury has to decide, based on the testimony of two admitted criminals who aren't being prosecuted for their crimes by testifying and the defendant's own statements. It is a state of mind case and the jury isn't Vulcan.

I say give the kid a Darwin Award.

I'd agree on a nomination for one.

The fact that those who seemed to be defending the act of shooting the kid relied on hearsay evidence as partial reason tells me that they can find no legal precident to back their positions and must add filler to make their case.

Hearsay evidence is not pemitted in courtrooms for the very reason that stories are imbellished with each retelling.
Everyone feels the need to add something to the story to make it more compelling.


Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,531,363
RAC: 4,819
Canada
Message 886282 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009, 15:22:48 UTC

The evidence I'll be waiting to see is the entry wounds.

If the wounds are anywhere but straight in from directly in front the kid was not approaching the shooter.

Even this is not proof that the kid was moving forward when shot but will be consistant with the statement of the shooter.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12395
Credit: 6,704,796
RAC: 8,692
United States
Message 886319 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009, 17:43:49 UTC - in response to Message 886282.

The evidence I'll be waiting to see is the entry wounds.

If the wounds are anywhere but straight in from directly in front the kid was not approaching the shooter.

Even this is not proof that the kid was moving forward when shot but will be consistant with the statement of the shooter.

We already know this, shot in the back.
http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S874512.shtml
We also know a grand jury believes much, if not all, of what the shooter says, because he is only charged with manslaughter and not murder.
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S884450.shtml?cat=566



____________

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,531,363
RAC: 4,819
Canada
Message 886361 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009, 20:36:17 UTC

Well
It seems that this is a case of self righteous assassination.

I don't care what anyone says about the number of times this kid broke the law, he did not deserve the death penalty.

I suspected from the start that first shot would be in his side and the second in his back when I considered how the thing would have played out.
The kid was leaning into the car when the shooter first fired and then running away when the second shot was fired.

What a heroic figure this vigilante must be.
If he's so very righteous and secure in his position that the kid had it coming, why lie about the kid charging toward him?

Is the shooter now going to claim the kid was charging toward him screaming "I'll get you!" while spinning around like a figure skater?

Profile Clyde C. Phillips, III
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 00
Posts: 1851
Credit: 5,955,047
RAC: 0
United States
Message 886412 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 17:09:34 UTC

Quite often it's not the criminals fault. It's his parents fault.
____________

Profile RandyC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 886470 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 20:21:38 UTC - in response to Message 886393.

I'm not sure as to why this story was brought to the attention of the fora in the first place. It really is a sad demonstration of the failure of the Liberal/Socialist agenda many elitists still hold true.

People who find it justifiable to accept criminal and antisocial behavior might want to seek a reality check.

I'm not sure as to why this story was brought to attention of the
fora in the first place. It really is a sad demonstration of the
wild wild west form of justice that many Americans still hold true.

People who find this tragedy to be justifiable might want to seek
threat management counseling.


Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12395
Credit: 6,704,796
RAC: 8,692
United States
Message 886478 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 20:50:32 UTC - in response to Message 886361.

Well
It seems that this is a case of self righteous assassination.

I don't care what anyone says about the number of times this kid broke the law, he did not deserve the death penalty.

That is why the person who shot him has to show there could have been a reason that the kid did deserve the death penalty, making it justifiable homicide.
I suspected from the start that first shot would be in his side and the second in his back when I considered how the thing would have played out.
The kid was leaning into the car when the shooter first fired and then running away when the second shot was fired.

If that was the case there will be lots of blood spatter with an origin inside the car for the first shot and the shooter would have been charged with first degree murder. You might actually want to see all the evidence before you make unwarranted assumptions. Good thing you aren't in the jury pool. He deserves a fair trial.

Then again consider that one and only one of the other kids said there was 20 seconds between the shots. (The other didn't so one of them has to be lying!) In 20 seconds how far can you run?

Or was it 20 seconds and the kid got up and said what he said and charged the shooter. Would a person who has already been shot saying "I'll get you" and charging you perhaps put fear into your mind?
What a heroic figure this vigilante must be.
If he's so very righteous and secure in his position that the kid had it coming, why lie about the kid charging toward him?

Robert you do know that when the shooter testified in front of the Grand Jury his lawyer wasn't present and only the prosecutor and the grand jury members asked questions?

The Grand Jury seems to think he didn't lie. Robert why do you, who didn't see him on a witness stand, think he did lie?

Do you think the Grand Jury didn't do its job?
Is the shooter now going to claim the kid was charging toward him screaming "I'll get you!" while spinning around like a figure skater?

Robert, you might want to look at some slow motion films of a football or rugby player charging an opponent before he tackles him and see if it is possible to be shot in the back. Let me qualify that, have an entry wound in the back, just so you understand that shot in the back doesn't mean perpendicular. While you are watching those films try and see how a bullet could enter the palm of one hand, hit a bone and change direction and go through the torso and exit to hit the elbow of the other arm.
____________

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,531,363
RAC: 4,819
Canada
Message 886503 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 23:02:09 UTC

I'm not going to enter into the magic bullet argument.

I had a hunch that the shooter fired first and asked questions later and I still believe that is what happened.
You see, I believe that most people who arm themselves before a confrontation are cowards, and this seems to be consistant with that theory.

Again, the bottom line is the shooter had no place being out in the streets to take the law into his own hands.
More often than not, something like this happens.

Next we'll be informed that the NRA is providing legal assistance for the guy.

Profile RandyC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 886527 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 1:03:33 UTC - in response to Message 886503.

I'm not going to enter into the magic bullet argument.

I had a hunch that the shooter fired first and asked questions later and I still believe that is what happened.
You see, I believe that most people who arm themselves before a confrontation are cowards, and this seems to be consistant with that theory.

Again, the bottom line is the shooter had no place being out in the streets to take the law into his own hands.
More often than not, something like this happens.

Next we'll be informed that the NRA is providing legal assistance for the guy.


And the ACLU standing up for the two who were at least smart enough to run away.

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,531,363
RAC: 4,819
Canada
Message 886554 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 3:54:19 UTC
Last modified: 20 Apr 2009, 4:17:34 UTC

The difference being...civil liberties are good for people while the NRA is just a front for the gun lobby.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12395
Credit: 6,704,796
RAC: 8,692
United States
Message 886567 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 5:24:43 UTC - in response to Message 886503.

Again, the bottom line is the shooter had no place being out in the streets to take the law into his own hands.

In the United States of America the right of citizen's arrest exists. I know that isn't the case in most British or former British lands. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept because you don't live with it.

He had the legal right to confront them. I'm not saying he wasn't stupid to do it the way he did, because he was.

I am also sure the failure of the American Government to do its most basic job of keeping it citizens safe from crime played into it. Perhaps Robert you aren't aware the usual response from the police to this type of property crime in America is to request your address to post you a form to report it! They simply will not respond to property crimes, even in progress, any more because it is so frequent they don't have enough officers to do it. I'm glad you live in a land where they do. In America the cops only respond to drug crimes because they can seize cash and property to turn a profit for the Government or things like rape and murder because they know the public would toss them on their butts if they didn't. Yes, Robert, it really is that bad in America.


____________

Tom Haley
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 99
Posts: 80
Credit: 398,134
RAC: 0
United States
Message 886645 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 13:56:18 UTC

"Again, the bottom line is the shooter had no place being out in the streets to take the law into his own hands."

As opposed to - the victim had no place being out in the streets stealing from others at 3 am in the morning?

Who caused the shooter to be outside at 3 am in a confrontation?

Is it okay to steal from people? Is it okay to provoke others to violence?

Do I have your word you will do nothing if I steal your stuff? How many times can I steal from you before you get upset? Once, twice, three times?

Will you be mad at me for taking your car? Your furniture? Your medicine? According to your reasoning I should be allowed to clean you out every time you accumulate something without worrying about your reaction to it. Because you are going to call the cops on me. They will show up after a while and let you fill out some forms. Maybe they will loan you a pencil since I already took yours.

By the way how new is your computer? I have a friend that will give me a few bucks for one, no questions asked.


____________
Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,746,265
RAC: 2,934
United States
Message 886660 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 14:21:24 UTC

Perhaps a better way to protect property is to buy insurance rather than a gun. I have suffered at the hands of burglars, fortunately I was not home at the time, so all that was taken was stuff and nobody was hurt. Stuff can be replaced. Tom, you are not invited into my home to take my computer, clearly that would void my insurance, but if you were to commit such an act against my stated desire, I'd be able to get a new one.

One thing I can't abide is a fellow American that believes his/her country to be superior without checking out what other countries do with regard to the subject they are talking about, case in point Citizen's arrest. Gary you should read more and talk less. Citizen's arrest is not a right in the U.S. (North Carolina does not permit it and it does not show up in the Constitution or the Amendments). Both Canada and the U.K do permit Citizen's arrest.

Oh and Robert, it might be that bad in the part of America where Gary lives, but there are other parts where it is not. The NYPD do not show up only for drug crimes, rapes and murders, they'll be there if you need them for other things.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 886662 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 14:23:41 UTC

OK this is boiling down to gun vs. no guns. I'll point out that Canada has more weapons per capita than the US. Canadians also don't typically have to lock their doors. they have few murders as a country than Detroit. So something is very wrong with the vigilante, gangland we call a country. We could take a lesson from our frigid neighbors to the north. Its called trust and respect of others. Perhaps we need someone or something like the gov't without the bereaucracy or religion without the hipocrasy could lead people to understand that nobody is better than anyone else in this country. THe sooner we pick up the idea that we need to have each others back and not lie cheat and steal from each other, the sooner we get the gun deaths under control.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Teenager Shot by Vigilante

Copyright © 2014 University of California