• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Drunk teen things neighbors house is his, enters, shot to death.

lol I love forums... I asked that question because stated that you can shoot them because they are in your house. I was asking (god forbid I know) to make sure that the threat element had to be there.

- - - Updated - - -

winter said:
Cause drunk teens have never been assailants... [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

They definitely have and can be. In fact this kid may have/probably was. I would just hope he made that clear when he was interviewed and didn't just say "I shot him because he was in my house"
 
PrimusTactical said:
lol I love forums... I asked that question because stated that you can shoot them because they are in your house. I was asking (god forbid I know) to make sure that the threat element had to be there.

- - - Updated - - -



They definitely have and can be. In fact this kid may have/probably was. I would just hope he made that clear when he was interviewed and didn't just say "I shot him because he was in my house"
Click to expand...

Will you sleep better tonight knowing that the justification for this shooting met your bullshit standards?
 
And what if this drunk teen pulled a handgun and gunned down the homeowner? Not a risk I would be willing to expose myself or family to.

How many times has someone been gunned down because they failed to act in response to the situation at hand?

ColdDayInHell said:
Will you sleep better tonight knowing that the justification for this shooting met your bullshit standards?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ColdDayInHell said:
Will you sleep better tonight knowing that the justification for this shooting met your bullshit standards?
Click to expand...

I'm sleeping well no matter how it turned out. Yet again, it's not about me. But if you want you can ask that kids family and see how they would sleep if they knew he was threatened and it was an accident as opposed to "I shot him because he was there". It's not MY standards, it's EVERYONES standards. Someone in your family ever got hurt you'd be the first to want to know WHY.

- - - Updated - - -

winter said:
And what if this drunk teen pulled a handgun and gunned down the homeowner? Not a risk I would be willing to expose myself or family to.

How many times has someone been gunned down because they failed to act in response to the situation at hand?
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I hope he stated that. That's the threat portion I was talking about.
 
some drunk people act aggressively, masking their alcohol intoxication. how would the homeowner not know that the kid is drunk and probably a lower level threat and not a pcp drug addict with 4x human strength in him. Fear of grave bodily harm was most likely involved here. We dont need monday morning quarterbacks here. Homeowner reasonably fears for his life or grave bodily injury of himself or family: safeties off, red and free on your contact.
 
stinger35 said:
Pretty awful story for all involved.
Click to expand...
+1

ANYONE, in my home uninvited is a threat. Does the threat require deadly force is the question. If I was to encounter an intruder they have about half a second to put their hands in the air, anything other than that I MUST assume they are reaching for a weapon. What are the chances that the person who broke into your house is a drunk neighbor vs a criminal?

If I recognize the person, they may get 1 second - but the same rule applies. I don't care if they say they are the police (a known tactic) or any other trick, unless you show me ID and prove you have a reason to be in my home - you are a threat.
 
Sir_Macadoo said:
more reason to not live in McMansionville. Im impressed the victims parents dont blame the shooter. Some folks still recognize actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me but in reading this I get the sense that he does blame the neighbor cause of an unlocked window.

"I was just informed that Caleb & his friend hopped the fence into the wrong backyard," Shawn Gordley wrote on Twitter on Monday. "They both thought it was my house. Caleb then climbed through an UNLOCKED window and staggered up the staircase that is identical to mine. Caleb would have went home with this friend, even though he knew I would have been furious, if that window was locked."

Charles.
 
This is a terrible tragedy.

Let's solve this problem so it can't happen again: Enact A Federal Home Safety Act Bill so that no two homes can look the same from any angle, in any lighting conditions.

To be fair and reasonable, this limit will only apply to homes on the same residential street.

Homes must not be painted in similar colors, nor shades of similar colors that may be confused as the same in dim lighting, moonlight or dark conditions.

Homes must have different prominent external features, such that if one has a porch with vertical banisters on its railings, another home on the same street may not have a porch with its banisters vertical, they must be at a different angle.

Windows on homes on the same street must be of different sizes and/or shapes.

Garage doors on home on the same street must of different sizes and/or have totally different shaped windows (if any) in them.

Driveways of homes on the same street must be of different size, width and/or shape so as not to be confused with one another.

Rooflines of homes on the same street must not be of the same type, shape, color, nor type of shingles.

Siding of homes on the same street must be of different textures and types. Preexisting homes that have brick or other similar looking siding as another home on the same street must be painted bright colors in a different patterns than any other home on the same street.

There can be no confusion that two homes look alike.
 
Who is saying the kid "thought" he was in his own house? The parents, who weren't there, and didn't even know their aspiring rapper son had snuck out of the house. Neighbors can't be burglars, rapists, or murderers? Teenagers aren't capable of that either?
I think of the people on here as generally smarter than the average person, that's why it pains me to see the "facts" provided by a biased media swallowed hook, line, and sinker sometimes. This story was PURPOSEFULLY written to make you sympathize with the parents of this person, by painting this shooting in an accidental or "mistaken identity" light. Fact is, this 6 foot tall teenager entered a house that wasn't his at night, through a window, set off an alarm, received a warning shot, and continued advancing towards the homeowner until he received the proper course of action.
I don't sympathize with the parents who lost a son, my heart is with the homeowner who faced a 6 foot tall intruder in the middle of the night and was forced to defend himself.
 
R1ch said:
This is a terrible tragedy.

Let's solve this problem so it can't happen again: Enact A Federal Home Safety Act Bill so that no two homes can look the same from any angle, in any lighting conditions.

To be fair and reasonable, this limit will only apply to homes on the same residential street.

Homes must not be painted in similar colors, nor shades of similar colors that may be confused as the same in dim lighting, moonlight or dark conditions.

Homes must have different prominent external features, such that if one has a porch with vertical banisters on its railings, another home on the same street may not have a porch with its banisters vertical, they must be at a different angle.

Windows on homes on the same street must be of different sizes and/or shapes.

Garage doors on home on the same street must of different sizes and/or have totally different shaped windows (if any) in them.

Driveways of homes on the same street must be of different size, width and/or shape so as not to be confused with one another.

Rooflines of homes on the same street must not be of the same type, shape, color, nor type of shingles.

Siding of homes on the same street must be of different textures and types. Preexisting homes that have brick or other similar looking siding as another home on the same street must be painted bright colors in a different patterns than any other home on the same street.

There can be no confusion that two homes look alike.
Click to expand...

Pretty good take on how a moonbat would "solve" the problem [laugh]

It is sad that the kid died. RIP.
 
My parents had a similar thing happen to them in WV a few years ago. Not only did the kid get the wrong house, he was in the wrong town! Dad shoved a 6" barrel in the kid's mouth while Mom called the Sheriff's Office. Long story short, the Deputy told my Dad that he was tired of dealing with this dirtbag and if Dad ever caught the kid on his property again, "Just shoot him. Bury him in the pasture and don't even call us."
 
K7500 said:
I'm in mass. We do NOT have a castle doctrine here. Wish we did. With the lack of a castle doctrine my family's concern is that if you fire, you must fire lethally. Period. Because dead man can't tell lies, or sue, or anything. With that in mind, I fully understand the fear that anyone in your home poses a threat. Especially because I have kids. The kid put himself at risk becoming intoxicated, and owns whatever followed.

I can't help but that a drunk kid, and an assailant, may be distinguishable.

Next problem. Out of fear of our rights being attacked, gun owners are typically incapable of acknowledging a potential mistake made by gun owners. Don't blame ya. During some recents gumshoes several people were shot accidentally due to pure stupidity. This of course made national news. This stuff can make us all look stupid, regardless of fault. It's perfectly reasonable to ask if the target was identifiable in any manner. 2nd gun rule I taught my child was not to aim at anything you can't identify, and are not willing to destroy. So. My guns have lights.
Click to expand...
According to the instructor at the home firearms safty course I took a couple weeks ago, we DO have a castle doctrine, but you'd better be ready to prove that you thought you were in immediate danger.

On topic - I'd say maybe if this kid were more responsible and stuck to activities that a 16 year old ought to be engaging in, he'd have a couple less holes in him.
 
Azaghal_Zero said:
According to the instructor at the home firearms safty course I took a couple weeks ago, we DO have a castle doctrine, but you'd better be ready to prove that you thought you were in immediate danger.

On topic - I'd say maybe if this kid were more responsible and stuck to activities that a 16 year old ought to be engaging in, he'd have a couple less holes in him.
Click to expand...
In this case, in MA, that Homeowner would be in BIG TROUBLE. Why ? Because the Teen had no weapon. I'm not saying that's right, just stating the facts.
 
K7500 said:
Ummmm. Whatever happened to not firing at someone or something without identifying it first? Drunk and assaultive? Or just a drunk kid? I have a light on my gun to see at night just for that particular reason. Target obviously wasn't identified ?
Click to expand...

In my house uninvited = dead
 
Personally, on a Jury, and it should not even come to that, I would surely acquit the Homeowner. That said, if the Teenager we really as DRUNK as is claimed, his behavior would be obvious. I'd like to think I would not shoot an unarmed, stumbling drunk. That's what Pepper Spray is for. Very, very sad.
 
Did you guys read this article? The kid broke in, set off the alarm, and was walking up the stairs! Who in their right mind would stop and ask him if he has bad intentions?!?!?!? This ****ing "whos fault is it" "could it have been avoided" shit is ridiculous!
 
K7500 said:
I'm in mass. We do NOT have a castle doctrine here.
Click to expand...

Incorrect

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Castle Doctrine Info Page
 
Pete85 said:
Incorrect

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Castle Doctrine Info Page
Click to expand...

Affirmative defense is drastically different than immunity from prosecution. So with a good lawyer and $250,000 you might get off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Similar threads

Tennessee mother accidentally shot, killed teen daughter while rummaging in purse for keys
Replies
17
Views
463
Tinkermatic
Tinkermatic
5 shot after Maryland high school senior skip day turns violent: 'What is the world coming to?'
Replies
7
Views
237
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Things you didn't know you needed
Replies
14
Views
455
greencobra
greencobra
Texas man shot, killed after 3 men tried to steal his truck and break into his home
Replies
13
Views
506
SS1
SS1
Autistic boy, 15, is shot dead by California cops after running towards them with a bladed gardening tool - Was on his way to being an engineer
Replies
28
Views
635
Buck F
Buck F
Back
Top Bottom