Oh man, this is gonna be good: Texas father shoots boy, 17, to death in daughters rm

[smackababy]

I speak from experience. I have two daughters, one a freshman in HS and the other in her 20s. I had a similar situation to this. This is a poor excuse for a parent. He has a teenage daughter who is damn near a full adult. The story goes, the 4 year old saw someone under the bed, the father then proceeds to get a gun first. Okay lets stop right here. The child is 4, most common sense parents would just go to the room to see what the child was talking about first. But the dad grabs a gun first, more thoughts on that in a minute.

So he gets a gun, then he walks in the room and catches the man and his daughter in the bed together. No screams or fighting heard from the daughter and the boy looks to be her age. Now no offense one look at that boy, he is a handsome fella, any father worth 2 pennies given the circumstances presented here would know DAMN WELL he didn't break in. Its absolutely boggles the mind. Now story goes she said she didn't know him, now lets say that's true. No way on earth the boy doesn't say wtf and starts giving his version.

Now here is what I speculate what really happened. When the 4 year old said someone was under the bed, the father knew who it was. He knew about the boyfriend and he probably warned him to stay away from his daughter. That's why he went and grabbed a gun first. He walked in and his daughter and this boy are having sex or getting nasty, an argument breaks out and the man shoots the kid. All speculation here, but regardless the death of this boy rests soley on the girl if this story is true as it is being told.

The problem is you're inserting all kinds of information that isn't known. The story, as it stands, is the brother saw someone under the bed and alerted the father. The father, in his infinite wisdom, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. Upon entering the room found a young man whom the daughter claimed she did not know. The father then order the intruder (because he daughter established it as such) to put his hands up, at gun point. The intruder complies but then protests when the father moves to call the police. Father shoots the intruder in the head. Going on the information given, there is nothing to indicate this was not justified, if not perhaps a bit overprotective and quick to draw (but that isn't illegal).

If more information comes out, such as the father knew the boy or caught the two and just went into rage mode, coerced his daughter to lie to police, or something then he should go to jail for a long time.

Not if they were invited in which appears to be the case. While the man is well within his right to defend his home and kill a true intruder, this clearly was not the case and father acted under very poor judgement here.

How exactly is it clear the boy was invited in? The girl stated he was an intruder. The father acted in the only judgement to be gotten from the information that was given. Some unknown person found under the bed of your daughter, who denies any knowledge of said person IS an intruder. And when said intruder does not comply with a gun pointed at them, they get shot.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Since he cant flat out prove self-defense, I think he needs to be prosecuted.

Why waste the money? Not a single jury in Texas would give him time.

I mean, shirts like these are bought and sold by the thousands:

The societal push to defend daughters has gone into extremes by the helicopter parent generation.

That is why if I have a daughter I hope all the religious wackos in my life are correct that Hollywood media can make you gay. She will get to watch nothing but Ellen, Xena Warrior Princess, and when she is older the L-Word. Then I won't have to kill anyone.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Why not just call the cops instead while you hold the person at gun point?

I would hold the person at gun point as long as they were literally not moving or making a sound. I'd say that, but I would also shoot without any hesitation if they didn't comply. Someone in your house obviously isn't interested in obeying the law. What do you think would happen if you hesitated or asked them to wait? "Hold on sir. Please don't rape my daughter or kill me and then rape her. I'm calling the police. We should wait for them to sort out this obvious misunderstanding." No. No. No. No again. You are a god damn idiot if you think an unknown, unwelcome person in a house is anything but an immediate threat. I don't want to kill anyone, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give the aforementioned person a spare second to potentially hurt an innocent person.

It's crazy how people are so quick to want to kill. I guess shooting someone to death is the American dream and people jizz at the thought of being in a situation where they can kill someone and legally get away with it.

Maybe you're just too stupid to realize how quickly something like this can go sideways. A person who is threatening your family or even potentially threatening your family doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. This isn't a new concept. People have been rightfully behaving this way for years. If you don't want to die, don't break into my house.

As much as I'd like to harm or kill an intruder that came in my house, I would not want to do anything until I understand why they're there. There is no good reason for them to be there, but I still want to know the reason before I act on it. Who knows it could be a person in some kind of crisis that just ran into the first house they could. At -50 if you are stuck outside for whatever reason, you do what you have to.

If there's no obvious harm in asking, that's fine. What your simple minded view of this situation is lacking is the fact that it can be incredibly hard to know what's going on. Sometimes you have to react before you have time to think. Hesitation could be death. I honestly don't really care what the situation is; you can knock or at least yell and scream at the door for help while breaking in. There's absolutely no reason to quietly enter someone's house.

In this case it could have ended with "get out of here you're not touching my daughter" and be left at that. The daughter would also need a talking to for lying. Nobody had to die here.

Did you read the article? He had the kid at gun point, but he apparently flinched. That's exactly the way I would have handled it as well. "Keep your hands up and don't move or I'm going to shoot." That's pretty cut and dry. Stand still so you aren't threatening me or my kid and you'll live.

Either way, sentencing should be left to the courts and jury, not cops, not citizens.

This kind of statement makes me glad I'm not a functional retard such as yourself. There's no concept of judge, jury, court, law, or whatever else you want to use as a ridiculous argument in this situation. Someone is potentially threatening my child -> I'm going to protect her life over his with zero hesitation -> whatever happens after that is irrelevant and I'll deal with it. As long as I don't shoot him without cause, the law will be on my side.

<other stupid crap snipped> ...a sentence should not be determined on the spot, like seems to happen a lot in the states.

It's not a sentence. It's defense. Seriously, you must be trolling. No one is this stupid.

 

[Phokus]

Lost in all of this is this 'story' is based on what the father and daughter have said. The only other person who could refute the story is dead. Only retards like Spidey would eat this up and believe every single fucking word that these lying/hot headed scumbags have told the police.

 

[smackababy]

Lost in all of this is this 'story' is based on what the father and daughter have said. The only other person who could refute the story is dead. Only retards like Spidey would eat this up and believe every single fucking word that these lying/hot headed scumbags have told the police.

Because, a perfectly non-bias and non-retard would immediately jump to they are lying/hot headed scumbags. Right?

 

[alkemyst]

Holding someone at gunpoint could be more illegal than just shooting them outright.

The way the law works more or less in most places is if a perp is leaving, you must let them flee.

Castle Doctrine changes this slightly, but you'd still be in legal hot water if it was well proven that the perp was totally non-threatening and in fact fleeing passively.

 

[BudAshes]

Holding someone at gunpoint could be more illegal than just shooting them outright.

The way the law works more or less in most places is if a perp is leaving, you must let them flee.

Castle Doctrine changes this slightly, but you'd still be in legal hot water if it was well proven that the perp was totally non-threatening and in fact fleeing passively.

Yup, shoot now ask questions later. We can always make more people.

 

[BudAshes]

It is absolutely OK to shoot someone if they don't have a weapon or they aren't a threat. This is the basis for castle doctrine.

Them being in the home as an intruder is all that is needed to lawfully shoot. By law, their presence in the home is presumed to cause death or great bodily harm. No weapon is necessary, just them being in the home, across the threshold of the dwelling. Some states also include detached buildings and porches/decks.

Some states don't have laws for necrophilia either so you can have sex with the corpse after it's dead. Just make sure to film it so you can prove they were dead first.

 

[Lepton87]

It is absolutely OK to shoot someone if they don't have a weapon or they aren't a threat. This is the basis for castle doctrine.

Them being in the home as an intruder is all that is needed to lawfully shoot. By law, their presence in the home is presumed to cause death or great bodily harm. No weapon is necessary, just them being in the home, across the threshold of the dwelling. Some states also include detached buildings and porches/decks.

Oh man, you are pure evil. Do you take some vicarious pleasure when a murderer gets to kill and an innocent person dies? I guess you are just waiting for an opportunity to make a "good shot". After shooting an innocent person you would probably have a boner for a weak
IMHO. The father is 100% to blame, he knew damn well that that boy wasn't an intruder. Having a gun shouldn't be a substitute for having a brain, sadly it is for many people. Why didn't he just ask the boy about his daughter name, surname and some other trivial question to make sure that his daughter is lying and that the boy knows her but I'm almost sure he knew that right from the start. I think he is just a vengeful child murderer like you know who.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Merica?

 

[Lepton87]

How exactly is it clear the boy was invited in? The girl stated he was an intruder. The father acted in the only judgement to be gotten from the information that was given. Some unknown person found under the bed of your daughter, who denies any knowledge of said person IS an intruder. And when said intruder does not comply with a gun pointed at them, they get shot.

What the hell would he be doing under the bed if not hiding? Why didn't he make any noise upon breaking in? Why would he try to rob the house when everybody was inside? How had he managed to get under the bed without being seen or heard? How hard is it to ask a personal question about the girl to see if he knows her or not? His hiding place was revealed yet he continued to stay there, why would he stay there? No intruder would leave himself vulnerable like that. I don't know how dense someone would have to be to conclude that he was an intruder when there are so many facts that make it extremely unlikely.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Was he moved his hands really the best lie/excuse he could come up with? At least stick a knife in his hand before you call the police.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Yup, shoot now ask questions later. We can always make more people.

:thumbsup: And abortion should be outlawed but killing citizens in foreign countries is a-okay.

 

[Lepton87]

Was he moved his hands really the best lie/excuse he could come up with? At least stick a knife in his hand before you call the police.

So far it seems that it was enough to get away with that murder.

 

[spidey07]

Even the prospectors say he will get no billed by a grand jury. Why are you arguing this fact?

 

[mikegg]

So the kid was black. Now is the family white?

 

[shortylickens]

So the kid was black. Now is the family white?

umm, please read the article.

Dad is black, daughter black, please dont turn this into another libtard pissing fest.

 

[BikeJunkie]

No, what is disgusting is everyone leaping to judge the unarmed dead kid and the daughter. Maybe the guy who shot this kid really is a hothead but no, you judge him to be right without really knowing much of anything.

How is that different than you race-baiting and leaping to assumptions about him being an abusive father?

I'm trying to keep an open mind and present other possibilities. Something you are completely incapable of.

As of Page 5, you most certainly were not maintaining an open mind. You rushed to your own assumptions and judgement; they just happened to clash with Spidey's.

Speaking of Spidey - you're fucking nuts.

 

[BikeJunkie]

snip

1000% this

I'm not even going to begin to try to speculate over what happened here; however, if I found a stranger in my home and my wife and kids claimed to not know who they are, then I'd react the same as MrDudeMan: gun aimed right between the fucker's eyes with strict orders to do nothing but breathe OR ELSE. If said fucker dropped his hands, he dead. Plain and simple.

No one's saying it's a perfect situation and there isn't room for error (such as a daughter lying about not knowing the "stranger"). What I DO know is that, at the end of the day, my job is to protect my family. I'd rather err on the side of what this guy did than lose a family member over my hesitation. Welcome to our imperfect world.

Now, before anyone has a hissy fit, that statement comes with a number clarifications, first and foremost being that everyone living under my roof has a long history of deep trust, wide open communication, and a clear understanding of how I would react to an intruder. Hypothetically speaking, if my daughter tells me she doesn't know the guy under her bed, then she knows she's giving a death order and I know she doesn't know the guy under her bed.

This has nothing to do with being a "gun nut" or a "sociopathic conservative" ( ). We do own a gun. It sits in a locked safe that only my hand will open. I don't like owning it and, barring the occasional thread like this, I often forget about it. I don't own it for fun/sport and I don't race off to the range to "play" with it any more than is necessary to maintain proficiency with it: it has one purpose only: home defense.

 

[BudAshes]

Why waste the money? Not a single jury in Texas would give him time.

I mean, shirts like these are bought and sold by the thousands:

The societal push to defend daughters has gone into extremes by the helicopter parent generation.

That is why if I have a daughter I hope all the religious wackos in my life are correct that Hollywood media can make you gay. She will get to watch nothing but Ellen, Xena Warrior Princess, and when she is older the L-Word. Then I won't have to kill anyone.

This has nothing to do with helicopter parents.