Boy who shot intruder says suspect 'cried like a little baby'
468 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50237344]A man breaks into a house MULTIPLE TIMES and threatens to kill a kid, but when the kid grabs a gun he's the psychopath. I'm surprised some of you would rather read a report about a kid leaving his home in a body bag rather than defending himself.[/QUOTE]
well, the kid shouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237399]well, the kid shouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place[/QUOTE]
Don't blame the victim of a crime. His house should not have been intruded on.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237399]well, the kid shouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place[/QUOTE]
So you would have preferred the kid died instead?
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50237344]A man breaks into a house MULTIPLE TIMES and threatens to kill a kid, but when the kid grabs a gun he's the psychopath. I'm surprised some of you would rather read a report about a kid leaving his home in a body bag rather than defending himself.[/QUOTE]
I was unaware that people were calling the kid a psychopath.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50237491]So you would have preferred the kid died instead?[/QUOTE]
When the kid actually went to get the gun the robber had already left the house. If he had actually tried to get the gun while the robber was watching I'm not sure he would have been this lucky.
As far as I'm concerned if someone threatens you with a gun you have the right to use lethal force to disable them, it seems a lot of people in this thread would rather curl into a ball and cry rather than defend themselves.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50237491]So you would have preferred the kid died instead?[/QUOTE]
wow nice, dude, very nice, great job putting words in my mouth
the child obviously didn't actually need to use the gun because the guy was already outside and running away
what's alarming is a culture that allows children to have access to guns, not the fact that somebody got robbed. that happens everywhere, it's solved by calling the police
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237600]wow nice, dude, very nice, great job putting words in my mouth
the child obviously didn't actually need to use the gun because the guy was already outside and running away
what's alarming is a culture that allows children to have access to guns, not the fact that somebody got robbed. that happens everywhere, it's solved by calling the police[/QUOTE]
In some rural areas, police can take 10-15 minutes to show up.
That's a long time to trust your life to someone else.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50237620]In some rural areas, police can take 10-15 minutes to show up.
That's a long time to trust your life to someone else.[/QUOTE]
surely those 15 minutes are worth not having killed a person
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237629]surely those 15 minutes are worth not having killed a person[/QUOTE]
not if you're the one who winds up hurt or killed.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237600]wow nice, dude, very nice, great job putting words in my mouth
the child obviously didn't actually need to use the gun because the guy was already outside and running away
what's alarming is a culture that allows children to have access to guns, not the fact that somebody got robbed. that happens everywhere, it's solved by calling the police[/QUOTE]
I think that's kind of a robotic way to deal with things. You probably shouldn't always treat it like the cops will come to save you, or the cops are the ones that should ever do anything. Like HumanAbyss said, the cops are gonna have a hard time showing up and catching the culprit with the delay and the lack of really anything in between their house and the next. And, again, this guy sucks, so who cares?
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237629]surely those 15 minutes are worth not having killed a person[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237399]well, the kid shouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place[/QUOTE]
What the fuck?
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237600]wow nice, dude, very nice, great job putting words in my mouth
the child obviously didn't actually need to use the gun because the guy was already outside and running away
what's alarming is a culture that allows children to have access to guns, not the fact that somebody got robbed. that happens everywhere, it's solved by calling the police[/QUOTE]
Why?
He obviously knew well enough about firearms to properly identify what a FMJ was.
In most rural parts of the country, kids usually end up being trained in how to properly handle firearms for hunting purposes. How in gods name is this even remotely a bad thing?
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237600]wow nice, dude, very nice, great job putting words in my mouth
the child obviously didn't actually need to use the gun because the guy was already outside and running away
what's alarming is a culture that allows children to have access to guns, not the fact that somebody got robbed. that happens everywhere, it's solved by calling the police[/QUOTE]
So you would have preferred the kid had no immediate way to defend himself from mortal danger?
You'd rather he wait up to 15 minutes for someone else to do the dirty work while a man threatens the lives of him and his entire family?
You'd rather a potential hostage situation?
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237629]surely those 15 minutes are worth not having killed a person[/QUOTE]
Again, context.
Nobody here who's arguing against the kid seems to understand this.
He had broken in. MULTIPLE TIMES. he had threatened to kill the kid. WITH A GUN IN HAND.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237629]surely those 15 minutes are worth not having killed a person[/QUOTE]
Not if me, my family are hurt, no.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237629]surely those 15 minutes are worth not having killed a person[/QUOTE]
i hope you're never in a situation where people are depending on you to protect them
[QUOTE=stupid10er;50237725]i hope you're never in a situation where people are depending on you to protect them[/QUOTE]
and i hope the government takes all your guns away from you
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50237675]Not if me, my family are hurt, no.[/QUOTE]
robbers aren't there to kill people, they're there to steal things because they need money.
killing someone is the worst possible outcome for them
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50237667]Again, context.
Nobody here who's arguing against the kid seems to understand this.
He had broken in. MULTIPLE TIMES. he had threatened to kill the kid. WITH A GUN IN HAND.[/QUOTE]
but did he? no. he was running away
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50237645]What the fuck?
Why?
He obviously knew well enough about firearms to properly identify what a FMJ was.
In most rural parts of the country, kids usually end up being trained in how to properly handle firearms for hunting purposes. How in gods name is this even remotely a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
[B]kids shouldn't have access to weapons that can kill a person[/B]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237739]and i hope the government takes all your guns away from you
robbers aren't there to kill people, they're there to steal things because they need money.
killing someone is the worst possible outcome for them[/QUOTE]
Imagine being this willfully ignorant. Just imagine.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237739]and i hope the government takes all your guns away from you
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
robbers aren't there to kill people, they're there to steal things because they need money.
killing someone is the worst possible outcome for them
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
but did he? no. he was running away[/QUOTE]
lmao it's the same broken record argument all over again
let's go over it once more, shall we?
To begin with, it's not the first time this robber broke into this kid's house.
Second, you can't expect that this kid will automatically make what you think is the right decision here. He was frightened and had been previously threatened by this thief with a gun, and i'm pretty sure the thief also threatened to come back and do worse.
Third, you seem to think the kid had no right to defend himself and his property against this criminal at all, and that only the police have the right to handle such a situation. I'm honestly glad you aren't put in a similar situation that involves protecting somebody else, because god knows if you'd just keep your head down and allow the robber to have his way with you and your possessions.
Fourth, it always seems to come back to your claim the kid shouldn't have shot this oaf because he was running away with the goods. When there's clear evidence of a threat to life, as in this instance, i'm not going to hold it against somebody for doing what they think is necessary to safeguard themselves.
Fifth, nice generalization that robbers are 'only in it to steal things from people', have you never heard of people being killed in their own homes and businesses during the facilitation of robberies? People are willing to kill others to take their property, it happens often enough that even a fool can see that some criminals are going to be willing to go that far.
Care to play again?
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237739]and i hope the government takes all your guns away from you
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
robbers aren't there to kill people, they're there to steal things because they need money.
killing someone is the worst possible outcome for them
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
but did he? no. he was running away
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
[B]kids shouldn't have access to weapons that can kill a person[/B]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
I understand this guy is shitposting, but I do want to restate that saying you're going to kill someone should be treated the same as if you were going to kill someone. Your status doesn't affect your statement.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237739]
[B]kids shouldn't have access to weapons that can kill a person[/B]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Why.
You have yet to explain WHY they shouldnt.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50237839]Why.
You have yet to explain WHY they shouldnt.[/QUOTE]
too much effort beyond holier than thou evangelism trying to show others the light, on how the kid should have behaved in a situation they have no idea understanding beyond 'its bad to hurt or kill people even in legitimate self defense.' The worse part is how it always comes back to 'you dont need to have any guns in your house' because somehow it's bad to legitimately own one.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50237136]Except it is legal under NJ law. If the robber has a gun out you're allowed to shoot them.[/QUOTE]
That's where you're 200% wrong
[quote=http://www.dashfarrow.com/criminal-law/self-defense-laws/]There are many instances in which self-defense is not justifiable in the court’s eyes. For instance, if there was a way for you to retreat and escape harm, the law says you must choose this option rather than using force. (It’s called your “duty to retreat”).
[B]Also, the force you use upon another when you act in self-defense must be proportional to the force used or threatened upon you. For instance, if you are slapped across the face, you cannot respond by using a firearm.[/B][/quote]
[quote=https://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/]The principle of Reasonableness is really an umbrella principle that applies to each of the previous four. The issue here is whether your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, and possessing the same specialized skills and knowledge (if any). If your actions were not reasonable by this standard, any claim to self-defense fails.
So, if you believed the other person was an aggressor, but a reasonable person would not have believed this, you did not act in lawful self-defense. Similarly if you believed that the threat was imminent but a reasonable person would not have, [B]or that the force you used was proportional to the threat but a reasonable person would not have, or that you could not have avoided the threat but a reasonable person would have . . . in each case the claim to self defense fails.[/B][/quote]
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
Actually according to our fucked courts, if a robber has a gun out you're supposed to run away if you have the chance
I don't think this law even applies strictly to NJ
[quote=https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif001.pdf]When a person is in imminent danger of bodily harm, the person has the right to use force or even deadly force when that force is necessary to prevent the use against him/her of unlawful force. The force used by the defendant [B]must not be significantly greater than and must be proportionate to the unlawful force threatened or used against the defendant. [/B][/quote]
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237739]robbers aren't there to kill people, they're there to steal things because they need money.
killing someone is the worst possible outcome for them
[/QUOTE]
I could find 100 articles on cases in NJ alone where a clerk was shot after a robbery for no reason at all, you don't even know what you're saying
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50236898]But he didn't die. So why the fuck would you say he should have been executed.[/QUOTE]
I guess to challenge people to reiterate their views and ideas as to what would be the most rational, ethical or otherwise right thing to do, instead of whatever I may have suggested in the vicious example.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237399]well, the kid shouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place[/QUOTE]
I honestly know kids younger than 10 who hunt every year or chance they get. They have more of a right to handle a firearm more than you.
[QUOTE=Eric95;50237739]
[B]kids shouldn't have access to weapons that can kill a person[/B]
[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I no joke have seen children who are more capable with weapons than most adults and know how to treat them responsibly.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50237839]Why.
You have yet to explain WHY they shouldnt.[/QUOTE]
I think he means a child who's untrained should not have access to a gun because he would hurt others or himself by fooling around with it.
While I myself do think that a 11 years old should have not known the location of the gun, there are always exceptions like in this case, where the kid is disciplined enough and received the proper instructions on the gun and what a gun can do.
In my opinion, the age of a kid shouldn't even matter, it more comes down to the mental age and discipline of the child.
There are over 30 years olds out there who should not have access to a weapon.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50237895]
Actually according to our fucked courts, if a robber has a gun out you're supposed to run away if you have the chance
[/QUOTE]
then again NJ has relatively strict gun laws to begin with. in PA we don't have a duty to retreat in addition to being fully justified in shooting if there's reasonable belief that your life is in danger. gotta love Stand Your Ground laws
this whole thread is cringey asf
of course im american and of course id defend the kid
if i had a gun and there was a burglar of course id shoot him, because thats the whole point of getting the gun
the fact that people are picking sides to this proves how edgy someone has to be. there are actually people in this thread who pride themselves on being an absolute pussy and not fighting back and saying it is a 'good' thing
lolololol lmao
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling/Why reply" - Novangel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50237895]That's where you're 200% wrong
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
Actually according to our fucked courts, if a robber has a gun out you're supposed to run away if you have the chance
I don't think this law even applies strictly to NJ
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
I could find 100 articles on cases in NJ alone where a clerk was shot after a robbery for no reason at all, you don't even know what you're saying[/QUOTE]
Read the subsections on it. You have no duty to retreat in your house in NJ.
[editline]1st May 2016[/editline]
To show you what I mean:
[url]ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20082009/A0500/159_I1.PDF[/url]
[QUOTE]c. Use of force in defense of personal property. Subject to the
provisions of subsection d. of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the
use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable
when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he
reasonably believes to be an attempt by such other person to
commit theft, criminal mischief or other criminal interference with
personal property in his possession or in the possession of another
for whose protection he acts.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]5. (New section) In addition to the justifications for the use of
force otherwise authorized under this chapter, a person, not engaged
in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any place where he has a
right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he
reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or
serious bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent a crime of
violence. [/QUOTE]
Anti gun liberals will literally do or say anything to justify the banning of guns.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.