September 28, 2008
-
Self-Defense
A Texas man has been acquitted by a jury after he killed a young boy who broke into his home to steal a snack.
The young boy was only 13 and broke into the man’s trailer with a few friends.
In Texas a person is allowed to protect himself and his property using deadly force.
The man confronted the boys with his shotgun and told them to get on their knees. The man shot the boy in the back and killed him. The man said he feared for his life. Here is the link: Link
Is it possible for a boy to be a threat to an armed man if he is on his knees and has his back facing him?
Comments (175)
clearly the self defense rules needs to be modified. i don’t think the 13 yr old was a threat.
What if he was a zombie or if he had a flamethrower?
Actually, no.
…what the fuck.
In Texas everything is bigger, including farts. Which is why if a texan has his back turned to you and you’re downwind….
Anything is possible. Things are never as they seem to be.
With that said, the boy is the one scared shitless not the man.
holy SHIT. that man must have been crazy.
a) they only wanted a snack… that’s so unbelievably harmless. it’s not like they were stealing valuables or anything…
b) the boy was 13 years old. didn’t know any better.
c) when you’re on your knees with your back facing someone, you’re so harmless. there’s nothing the boy could have done. especially against an armed man.
the man has no excuse.
NO.
Of course not.
No, that is terrible.
Outragous.
They deserved it.
No, but the law doesn’t account for that here. WELCOME TO TEXAS :-
Anyways, a 13 year-old-boy and his friends have no business robbing a 63-year-old man. If I was being robbed repeatedly like the old man, should I call Popo or take our my shotgun?
Well he shouldn’t have killed him.
Beaten him up, sure, but killed? Not in this situation.
The boy was on his knees… clearly cooperating with him & not a threat. I don’t buy it. But
honestly, when I first heard this story, I knew he was gonna be
acquitted because it’s Texas.
DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!!!!!
yes
Yeaaa that’s excessive.
In this case, that isn’t self-defense. He could just have easily thrown the kid out of the place. Maybe given him a snack? Or he could have called the cops. I mean, unless he was a giant Supermanish 13 year old..
he went OUTSIDE and killed the other dudes? what excuse was that? the police even told him to stay inside. i would say he’s guilty but let God handle him the way He sees fit.
ugh.
@deflate@revelife - I hope your hair catches on fire.
@RaVnR - You know as well as I do that this had nothing to do with the law per se. That was a local jury issue. Also, I would like to see the facts of the case. Usually when these things are reported, the press leaves out significant facts and sensationalizes a bit. Sells newspapers.
@momma2babies34@revelife - You’re thinking of a different case (Joe Horn) in Houston, I think. He was No Billed by a grand jury, so that never even went to trial. That was a huge media circus, and confused the real issues.
It’s quite possible for a teenager of a few more years to be a great, muscular brute, but at 13 it’s unlikely. And it’s quite possible for the man to be a frail, tottering, scared old guy, or a strong, healthy man. We don’t know. Pictures, lack of them, other factors…. We don’t know. But in any case, it’s one hell of a sad story.
The man couldn’t possibly have been fearing for his life if he is armed and the kids were not. And then to have them kneel and shoot them in the back, execution-style, is horrible. But age is not the only factor in why this is reprehensible. If someone IS a real threat, armed and ready to kill you, then their young age does not matter.
Kathi
The man had endured several break-ins, there were four teens (raging in ages 11 to 15), and really – how stupid do you have to be to break into someone’s house because you’re hungry? Kid got what he deserved. Don’t break into someone’s house in Texas – even a trailer.
That makes me sick. He thought the boy was lunging at him. LIES! How can someone lunge at someone else when they are turned around and on their knees. And since the bullet went into his BACK…obviously he wasn’t turned around. Texas now makes me sick.
.
I wasn’t there so I do not know, but I can’t imagine that he had to kill him like that. I would think he could have held them at gunpoint and called 911, if he had to shoot him he could have shot him in the leg
not at all
No.
No. He got away with murder.
That went a little too far. He should have held them at gun point and called the cops.
Well, if taken at face value, everyone can monday morning armchair quarterback. However, there may have been circumstances not recorded.
For example, we are assuming the man was in his right mind, and not on drugs or having army flashbacks, or even a post-traumatic event from when kids may have broken into his home when he was a child and abused him.
We also don’t know if the boy was not getting up to grab a kitchen knife from the counter, nearby, or if the old man was gun happy, maybe a second gun laying about.
From what I have been presented, I would find that it was excessive, and I would have sentenced the old man for holding the children hostage and/or wrongful death.
But I’m no big city lawyer.
no and I think it was completely wrong for him to shoot and that he used a very LAME reason for doing so!!
I’d have to go with no since the guy was armed. What was this kid Hercules or something? That was extreme since he could have just called the cops and kept the guy on the kid. If the kid had a weapon and came towards him I could shooting him but in this sitch I’d say it was overkill and hee I think I made a pun.
no. that’s s dumb man, and that’s wrong.
NO. i don’t know what else to say about this. can people really be that gullible?
Wow! The jury ACTUALLY believed him? Were they stupid!? I’m NEVER moving to Texas…seems like the law there has some stupid things with it.
Oh my gosh, that’s terrible! I think even the Mafia would have let the kid live. Jeez.
That’s fucking ridiculous,
poor kid.
It’s crazy how some states have self defense laws like that,
and then other states don’t even accept self defense as a plea.
No. What a horrible story. That man is a murderer.
no. that’s fucking ridiculous
When he pulled the trigger, he overreacted. However, how can you blame him? his castle had been broken into by children. Children. He must have thought they were like, gang members or something
this makes me sick to my stomach.
if someone is on their knees and you have a gun pointing at them from behind….obviously, you are the one in control. it’s horrible that a person could kill a young boy in cold blood, just because they can get away with it under the law.
people put such little value on human life.
This is crazy…i don’t think that execution style killing falls in the same line of self defense…
Thats absolutely ridiculous. How was the boy a threat whatsoever?
That was an execution.
Texas, however, is fucked up enough to deem it self defense.
I laughed when I read that a few days ago
No, the boy wasn’t a threat that deserved lethal force, he executed him for fuck’s sake.
Sometimes when you gamble you lose, and that is the risk the boy accepted and took. If it is true the boy was on his knees facing the other way, the man’s actions may have been excessive, but who is to say that the boy didn’t try something? I’m going to say that in protection of self-defense rights, I agree with the acquittal. Don’t go where can’t afford to.
This reminds me of when I broke into Fort Knox because I wanted some pillows. They all just really overreacted.
No? 13 years old boy a threat to a grown man? I don’t think so.
Welp, natural selection takes another victim.
Why not offer to fix them a snack? Don’t kill people.
How would he have known that all they wanted was a snack? That’s what I can’t figure out.
Wow…just…wow
The old man came into the trailer armed and ordered them to thier knees. So he put himself into a situation to “fear for his life.” He then ordered the other bos to take the body out of his trailer. Way to be afraid.
the parents should Appeal. US supreme all the way. they don’t like it when kids die…
thank god i’m not from texas. the single pull of a trigger just killed a kid that could have done something in life.
If they’d had guns, age would not be a factor.
If they’d had knives, age would not be a factor.
If they had lit torches and gasoline, age would not be a factor.
But I’d say this? Is extreme.
NO WAY.
I had thought( from my mother’s (a native Texan, by the way) description) that the men down there were ‘reasonable gentlemen’
But….this is BAD….He EXECUTED the boy.
NO! absolutely not!
BOTH attorneys said he forced the boy to his knees, but yet, the man said, “he thought the boy was lunging at him when he fired the gun”. I doubt the boy could lunge at him with his back turned and on his knees. The guy would KNOW if he was lunging, because if the boy planned on it, he would’ve gotten off his knees and turned around. and even so, the boy was unarmed, or maybe I’m mistaken….
but seriously, how could you take someone’s life for two smashed Twinkies?
disgusting.
That’s pretty messed up. There’s no reason to shoot a man in the back, much less a kid. I understand that from the standpoint of the law, they were on his property, but it sure sounds like he killed this child unnecessarily.
that story is sick. I think even a 20 year old unarmed man on his knees with his back to you when you have a shotgun pointed to him is not a big enough threat that you have to shoot them. But a bunch of kids? It’s ridiculous. HE could have just told the kids to get the hell out of there and they’d have run off and hten he could have called hte police.
Shooting this kid did not make this man any safer. Probably the opposite cuz if I was the parents of that 13 year old kid now I might be the one in the market for a gun.
Absolutely he can be a threat. He just broke into your home for who knows what – if he’s willing to go that far, he might be willing to go a lot further. I agree that we don’t have the full story here. The media deliberately leaves information out at times for their own agenda. For all we know, the kid had a knife in his hand.
And for everyone saying that the kid was innocent/unable to do anything because of his age, think about this: I’ve seen eleven-year-olds in martial arts classes take down grown men. A thirteen-year-old boy is plenty big enough to be a threat if he wants to be.
I’m going to go with…no.
I dare say they acquitted a man that killed someone else. Come again, I thought Texas supported capital punishment. Oh wait…we do.
What a rotten jerk! He’s guilty of murder! And I would not consider there were any mitigating circumstances!
I think it’s time those Texans in government smartened up! It’s about time some laws were repealed!
@PretendPrincess - DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!!!!!
You sound fucked-up in the brain.
deadly force was excessive in this instance, had the man kicked the shit out of the boys it would have been fine
he didnt need to shot the kid in the back, a shot fired into the air would have been just as effective against children
what the hell… on this knees and in the back…. that is like execution style…. I dont see how anyone could feel threaten in his position… that is retarded
you are talking about texas–gun crazy capitol of the country. in texas, the guy with the gun usually makes the rules…
I want more details on the matter before passing judgment. I don’t know the reputation of the boys, I don’t know the physical health conditions of the man. In any case it’s a sad story.
But normally I’m for people using force in matters of self-defense…
If you’re armed with a gun against a thirteen year old boy, I can hardly imagine how the boy would be a threat. That’s awful.
@JessicaAshley7 - Absolutely he can be a threat. He just broke into your home for who knows what – if he’s willing to go that far, he might be willing to go a lot further.
What’s relevant is the circumstances of the fatal shooting. The boy was shot in the back while on his knees. His friends were also on their knees. At this point, the children offered no threat.
I agree that we don’t have the full story here. The media deliberately leaves information out at times for their own agenda. For all we know, the kid had a knife in his hand.
If the boy had a knife, the fact would have came out in the trial. None such information was presented. It takes a bit of dementia to call out the Associated Press for liberal bias.
“Sometimes when you gamble you lose, and that is the risk the boy accepted and took.”
I’m not defending breaking into someone’s house under any circumstances. It’s wrong. But the kid had Twinkies and cookies in his pockets. He was hungry and stupid and thirteen. Teenagers aren’t exactly known for their foresight . . . I don’t think he accepted any risk. He didn’t even think of it. To shoot a boy, execution style, who has Twinkies and cookies in his pocket makes me sick. When he’s begging for mercy, it makes me want to cry.
For God’s sake, call the parents, call the cops. Community service, suspension . . . killing a kid armed with Hostess snacks is inexcusable. I don’t care what state you’re in. And to make other boys pick up the body is demented. This guy needs to be put in a psych ward. What was the child going to do, force feed him sweets and sugar him to death?
Disgusting.
At least Texas makes a darn fine chicken fried steak. And pecan pie.Yum.
Of course not. About a week ago my friend’s dad was home and he saw this black kid standing in the room. He freaked out and called the cops. It turned out that the kid was actually his daughter’s friend.
I’ve always thought shooting someone in the back is unjustifiable except in the case of stolen Classified materials. In training we were always told we are not to shoot at anyone running away except in the case of unrecoverable escapes (they’re past the outside wall) or while guarding top secret materials.
It depends on who’s telling the story. There are plenty of liberal minded ppl in Tx. If the man was acquitted, there’s probably MORE to the story than ppl know.
* Breaking into a person’s home is a pretty big threat, don’t ya think?
I promise you, if you break into a house in Compton, you will get a similar response, same w/ Stop 6 or Dalworth in the dfw area.
@PreciousOnyx - I want more details on the matter before passing judgment. I don’t know the reputation of the boys, I don’t know the physical health conditions of the man. In any case it’s a sad story.
Yeah. In particular, it’d be nice to know whether the man fired point-blank or from a distance. I’d also like to know the circumstances following the shooting; whether the shooter tried to cover things up.
wtf is wrong with the jury? i agree with Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker(according to that article).
@huginn - You’ve been missing me lately, haven’t you? It’s nice to know I’m loved…
I think you know better what I meant. The media has a wonderful knack for sharing only the parts that make their view of the story. I want what they’re not saying…
@PreciousOnyx - Oh no. I didn’t pick up that idea from your comment.
Are you seriously accusing the Associated Press of “liberal media bias”?
They should do the same thing to that guy and see how he likes it.
no that is so wrong.
I have not read the link so I do not know the details of this case but in general…..
I think it depends on the circumstances… was it dark? How big was this kid? 13 years old mean nothing as far as whether he is a threat or not. I’ve seen some pretty massive MAN like 13 yr olds. I seriously doubt he had time to do an ID check at the time. Was he ACTING threatening? Could the man tell with absolute certainty that this “person” was not armed himself?
I own firearms… if ANYONE breaks into my home, and its dark, and I tell them to drop to the ground or whatever, and they sudden move… the likelyhood that my finger is going to hit that trigger is high.. because I am nervous, don’t know this person and what their ultimate motives are, and you WILL be thinking of yourself first. In my neighborhood… it IS the kids we have to watch out for.
We live in a culture where people don’t want to take responsibilty for their actions… or their KIDS actions. Your rights end as soon as you put me or my family in any kind of danger, real or perceived by doing something stupid and illegal like breaking into someone else property.
You have GOT to think about it in terms of what if you are at home and PEOPLE you don’t know (YOU DON”T REALLY CARE HOW OLD THEY ARE) are breaking into your home…
How many times have we heard stories about home invasions where your entire family is murdered or raped and beaten … and they are done by young men. I’ve heard of 17yr olds doing this…. and in that kind of situation… your not really going to determine …”ok now, how old are you…old enought to drive? to Vote? ”
All you are thinking about is these people might hurt you or your family. Lets face it…. they are obvioulsy not upstanding kids in the community… or they wouldn’t be BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME!
To shoot someone in the back is completely ruthless. Unless they were running away and like, shooting with their own gun behind them to try to hurt you or something…
I agree with the self defense law- if someone is on your property that shouldn’t be, and there is a high probability that they will try to harm you or your assets, then the property owner shouldn’t have to fear repercussions when they try to defend their home.
In this case, from what limited view we have on it, we don’t know if it was a threat. I have seen hulking huge thirteen year old boys who had their growth spurt. Perhaps this man just wanted to teach them a lesson. According to this law, he was allowed to do that. Either way, I don’t agree with what he did, but a law is a law.
Texas, you should be ashamed of yourself to allow this. Disgusting.
I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I have the benefit of hindsight and some court testimony. The man didn’t have that advantage. For all he knew, they all could have been armed. If someone breaks into your house, I think you should be ready for anything. Heck if you BREAK into a house, especially in Texas, you should be ready for anything. Fear isn’t rational.
No
I think the real question is why somebody breaks into another man’s house just to steal a snack? Why not something you could sell to buy multiple snacks?
This is entirely based off not reading the article, of course.
I don’t think the boys could be a threat at that moment. But later on they could be. Raid his trailer again and be more prepared with weapons or something. But i don’t know where i stand on whether he should’ve shot them or not.
What a severe dick!
No. But Texans are nuts. Someone in Texas points a gun at you, you better hope they’re a bad shot because you’re dead otherwise.
did he have incredible kinetic powers? that would still be threatening i imagine. but an execution style self-defense? hmmmm.
@SheWolf - I think it depends on the circumstances… was it dark? How big was this kid? 13 years old mean nothing as far as whether he is a threat or not.
The home owner had the situation under control. With gun in hand, he has established enough control to command the bons onto their knees. At this point, the children can’t have posed a threat.
I am sick of criminals getting the sympathy for getting hurt in the process of committing a crime.
I don’t care if it was “only for snacks”. This man had his home invaded by several people. If people break into your home – they are putting YOU in a position of having to defend yourself and your property, and YOU just don’t know what kind of people you are dealing with. If I have my gun on someone and they moved too fast for me and I am already nervous… that trigger is going to get pulled. And he would not know for sure if that kid was armed, even if he had his back to him and on his knees, if the crook started to move to fast or anything out of line.. I can TOTALLY see how the old man could end up firing his weapon.
I don’t care how old they are…. they have to be held accountable for putting THEMSELVES in that position. The parents should sue????
I would want to sue the PARENTS for not doing a better job raising their little delinquents. And here where I live… the 13 are pretty darn big, and aggressive, and gang members.
We need to stop sugar coating the law to benefit the criminals (kids included) and make sure they KNOW that they law will be on the VICTIMS side.
wow poor kid..
The fact remains….. that kid would be alive today if he did not decide to violate THAT mans rights and property.
It SHOULD BE a lesson to all criminals, old and young alike, that if you CHOOSE to commit a crime….. you are putting your own life in your own hands.
And you do not know that just because he had them on their knees at that particular moment that the situation was in fact in control. I believe that that kid started to do something and in the heat of the moment, with the tension that no doubt was there and the excightment and confusion… that old mans finger hit the trigger.
But those kids put him in that position.
And Texans wonder why they get such a bad rep.
I don’t think so…unless the kid was armed, but a 13 year old on his knees with his back to him, come on… the guy definitely had the advantage and shouldn’t have shot unless the kid pulled a weapon on him.
Wow. Texans.
Unbelievable.
he could not have known for sure that the person robbing him was unarmed.
And I don’t buy that they were only there for a snack. Makes a nice little story for sympathy though, don’t it. Yes, I was robbing the place… “but I just wanted a SNACK”.
What, were they suffering a case of the munchies from being STONED as well? Yes, having a stoned, possibly armed criminal busting into my home with ME still in it… I shouldn’t fee threatened….
If I have CRIMINALS on their knees and I don’t know they are armed or not, and one of them moves in a way that to me could possibly be reaching for a weapon… your toast. And it YOUR fault for busting into my home and making me fear for my safety and property.
Stop velvet gloving the criminals in this country. The law says its illegal to steal, and invade anothers home….. their is no loophole that says… UNLESS ITS JUST A SNACK.
sorry for the spelling…. fingers typing to fast…
the kid broke in but was in a submissive position when he was shot. this man should be locked up for life. better yet, told to squat in a corner and take a bullet to the back of the head. this man didn’t feel threatened. he was pissed and shot this boy out of anger.
i don’t believe so. i think that’s a little extreme. but we don’t know the real circumstances of what actually happened.
@JadedWolfStudios - …I don’t care how old they are…. they have to be held accountable for putting THEMSELVES in that position…
The accountability and punishment for breaking and entering, and the theft of snacks should be decided by the extent of the law and not some executioner with a shotgun.
@JadedWolfStudios - If I have CRIMINALS on their knees and I don’t know they are armed or not, and one of them moves in a way that to me could possibly be reaching for a weapon… your toast. And it YOUR fault for busting into my home and making me fear for my safety and property.
We know now that the children could not have been reaching for a weapon because they had none to reach for. We know that the teenager was shot with his back still to the man.
The mere pressence of tresspassers on your property does not give you the free warrent to murder them.
Sounds like the 13 year old had it coming. Just because he wasn’t a threat at the moment doesn’t mean he wasn’t one prior, and doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have become one again in a few minutes.
Maybe next time the 13 year old will find a snack elsewhere, of course, that is assuming that they have snacks where he lives now.
No, but he shouldn’t have trespassed in the first place. 13 year olds know better.
Yes he is a threat even in that position. There are some sneaky ppl out there and who knows what that kid is plotting in his head. Those kids could have signaled each other to all attack at the same time, ambushing him.
Those kids shouldnt be breaking and entering in the first place. Snacks? Yea right…..Theyre not 7 to be pheening for food so bad that have to have it. 13 year olds know how to behave enough to hold their appetite
I think we should hear the whole story and his side of it but from what I read it looks liek the guy just wanted to kill the kid and he should be put to death.
@huginn - “We know now that the children could not have been reaching for a weapon because they had none to reach for. “
Exactly.. We know NOW that they CHILDREN were not armed. That old man in the heat of the moment could NOT have known for sure if they were or were not armed. So if they moved to suddenly or behaved in an aggressive manner even while on their knees…. they WOULD have been perceived as a threat to the VICTIM who fired out of fear.
And keep mentioning CHILDREN… it doesn’t matter that they were 13 years old. This would be the same if they were 25 or 50. They DID know breaking in was wrong. They DID know it was illegal. They chose to do it anyway.
I do not believe he “murdered” them just for the hell of it. I believe that in the tense moments of having STANGERS, PEOPLE busting into your home, he WAS afriad, and expected them to do something any moment. And anyone armed to protect themselves will have their finger on the trigger ready to fire if they think they will need to….. and in the excightment… someone would just have to FLINCH right and you will pull that trigger. THEY put him in that kind of position. THEY chose to put their lives in his hands as soon as they CHOSE to bust into his home.
And though it is too bad a young kid is dead… the fact remains that he was a young, stupid, delinquent. If it didn’t happen that night… the choices he was making with his life may very well just have it happen to him later. Or he may later ended up hurting someone else.
Sorry. I’m not going to side with a criminal. Or “Children” as you prefer to call them.
BTW.. the average gang member is about that age when they are initiated.
The meat of that article is the end. We need to remember how terrible the drug problem is in those South Texas border towns. I can understand his being fearful of these kids because, unfortunately, kids are no exception to the running rules down there. They are part of the issue. Also, how much can an jury take the word of the sixteen year old who was also one of the kids to break in? I think if the man wanted to brutally kill those kids, he would not have stopped at one. I hate that it happened. I hate that all the kids were doing was stealing food, but the man is elderly and had his home broken into in a town known for its drug violence. I don’t know that I wouldn’t have shot.
Some 13 year old kids could possible be posed as a threat to someone.
But, the man was armed and he caught the child and made him get on his knees.
He should have dialed 911 and called the police and reported the incident.
Hardly.
@huginn - It’s a joke. Derrrrrrrrrr.
I wasn’t there, but my guess is that this kid was probably mouhing off or laughing. The dude was already pissed off and on an adrenaline rush. It doesn’t take much after that.
@PretendPrincess - No shit.
mmmm… i seriously feel like theres some info missing, whatever the case, kids, especially before 16 yrs, are like priority man, a jury wouldn’t have just let that one go, and the parents of those kids probably througha fit, and are raising hell.
@JadedWolfStudios - omg dude, a life is still a life, and kids don’t know what they’re getting into when they take risks, they haven’t developed enough experiences to SERIOUSLY see/percieve/understand what is right and wrong.
I know that the laws in texas are a little different than other states, possibly a little more liberal. Whether the 13 yo was a threat at the time or not, he shouldn’t have been stealing in the first place, and he was old enough to know the consequences.
I’m surprised if that’s the accepted truth that the jury came out with this verdict. Maybe something is going unreported here? I’m no expert, but I just started law school and self-defense is one of the things we’ve talked about. This is NOT what self-defense is supposed to be.
Yea that is understandable
…
@Still_groovy - After reading the article, it looks like this is old man vs more than one kid who is already a criminal who has no regard or respect for others. The old man is justified in his actions. The kid doesn’t need weapons to kill the old man. If weapons are required for the action to be justified, then we put a whole entire senior population at a much higher risk of being brutally murdered at the hands of careless children.
I have seen what a 13 (or younger) year old can do – they are much more capable than people think they are.
NO!!! I’m as big on self-defense as the next guy, but there’s a huge, huge difference between chasing someone off or shooting them AS THEY’RE STEALING FROM YOU and murdering them execution-style.
no, Things happen in texas
Look, I am not saying line them up and pick them off one by one…
You people are not reading everything.
In a situation like that the old could
1)not know for sure that one or all were in fact not armed.
2) they are in fact stronger and by that alone could be a threat
3)it was a high anxiety situation and the man was afriad in general. Just because he had a gun does not mean he would be scared to death
4)he could not know that they were just there for snacks.. and for christs sake … they are criminals busting into your home… you couldn’t believe them even if they say thats all their there for. Don’t be so naive.
5)It would be TOOO easy for a situation like above for something to happen and he pulls the trigger. Not out of a murderous intent, but because of the WHOLE situation listed above… all it would take is one sudden move or misunderstanding.
SO it is sad that the kid ended up dead… but should the man get in trouble for it happening…..
NO because the kids set those circumstances in motion.
And don’t give me that crap that a 13 yr old doesn’t know what he’s doing. He did. What if that 13 yr kills your mother or child…. are you going to let them get away with it because… “oh well…. they don’t REALLY understand the impact of what they are doing because they don’t have enough life experiences yet…”
Its that kind of thinking that breeds these kind of kids. Parents and society that don’t want to hold their kids accountable for their actions.
Kids (young thugs in the making) NEED to see this story and KNOW that if this is the life you choose…..
This can happen to you.
Again… I’m not screaming “hang ‘em all”, just that it is not the old mans fault that he was put in this postion and things got out of control. So he should not be punished in any way for it.
Considering how kids have been lately I would be scared no matter how old the kid was, so yes a 13 year could POTENTIALLY pose as a threat. And given they broke into the man’s house (which as 13 year olds you should have some sort of idea that this is not acceptable, especially witht he law) they were in the wrong in that aspect. However, it’s clear the boy was not meaning harm since he did obey what the man said. The man was in the wrong for shooting the boy after he had submitted to his orders and clearly would have left the premises had the owner demanded/threatened him to do so. But rather the man chose to shoot him in an almost execution style, which I would consider (giving the circumstances) murder, not self defense.
It seems ridiculous that he would still feel threatened, but I wasn’t there so I don’t know what was happening. I wonder if the man has trouble sleeping at night because he killed a boy by shooting him in the back?
…brutal beyond words..
@jhim43 - forget what we do or do not know, what did the man know? for all he knew the kid had a gun in his belt he was pulling out.
@AvenueToTheReal - that just makes me LOL, and wether it was intentional or not, gets to the heart of the issue. they broke into his house for twinkies? were there no gas stations near by selling them for the $0.50 that they cost?
this article doesnt make me nearly as upset as the idiotic responses to it. why oh why oh why are people so stupid? first off, by saying that an old mans security in his own home is worth less than some punk kids sugar tooth. to me, the fact that these shits thought their desire for a midnight snack trumped this mans right to feel secure in his own home(if that was their true intentions) makes it all the worse. they put one of their most TRIVIAL desires ahead of one of this mans most SACRED rights.
further, to those intellectually impared who can not fathom anyone under the age of 21 built like an addonis being a threat to anyone, lets recap trends in what teens are capable of as of late
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10834294/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/19/homeless.attacks/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1018/p09s03-coop.html
in that last one, you will note, the ages of people who MURDER homeless people for fun start at 14 that’s FOURTEEN. so yes, someone in their early teens can pose a significant threat, especially considering that the average age of homeless victims i found was in their forties and this man was in his late sixties.
so for all the morons out there, lets recap.
you’re in your late sixties, the sunset of your life, not as spry and quick and strong as you used to be. you dont have much, just a simple trailer, but it’s yours, and you work damn hard for it. the problem is, it’s been broken into several times, maybe by these same kids who woke you up tonight. it’s dark, you’re groggy, their younger, faster and stronger than you. your only advantage is the 16 guage in your hand. you’re outnumbered though and of course you know all about the teen violence permiating society. maybe the kids are mouthy, maybe their reminding you, you have to sleep or go to work sometime, and they’ve already proven they can get in without your consent. it’s only a matter of time before they come back for some payback. then one of them makes a sudden move. you dont know if he has gun or a knife, or what the hell he’s doing. what you do know is he and three of his friends broke into your house in the middle of the night while you were there. i dont believe anyone here would give them the chance to make the news story read “(your name here) found murdered in his/her home” no, you would have shot first and probably not bothered with questions.
this outcry on behalf of the criminals, the ones who broke into an old mans house, reminds me of a video that went around the net a while back. it was the sentencing of a black teenager who had killed an elderly jogger just for the fun of it. that was his actual stance. when he was sentenced his family nearly rioted and clearly could be hear their voices saying “it was just an old man.”
well, guess what, “he’s old” or “all i wanted was some twinkies” is NO EXCUSE for violating sacred rights. it would be one thing if they were a group of homeless kids looking for a meal or medicine or money to eat or buy clothes with. but sorry, i can have no pity for this. they threw his life away for twinkies and hoho’s, what they need to do now is charge his friends with murder based on the felony murder doctrine and show them that you MUST respect the rights of others or else you lose your own.
@ionekoa - ”forget what we do or do not know,”
Done and done,….wait, what were we talking about?
@Grampa_David - yeah, what a bastard, protecting what little he had from being violated and taken to satisfy the whims of a bunch of punk kids. how dare an older man, woken in the middle of the night by four burglers, much younger and stronger than he protect his home? what is society coming to when you cant victimize the elderly without risk of reprocussions huh? i mean these kids wanted SNACKS, and we all know that when a teenager wants snacks that’s far more important than the security of some fogeys home. is my point sinking in? you have no grace for this guy, who has been repeatedly victimized, yet cry out when his attacker gets what is inevidible. i seem to remember reading an ancient text that said something along the lines of “when people plot and steal and lie in wait for the blood of the innocent, they lie in wait for their own blood” not an exact quote, but maybe you would know better than i do where that’s from. or “if a man breaks into another mans home and is killed, no blood shall be spilled for him.”
pray to God that you are never put in the situation this man was in lest you be judge just as worthless as you have judged him to be.
@jhim43 - flower arrangements… roses or tulips?
@ionekoa - Oh yeah,…So if you get roses, you will notice that they lack the fragrance they were once know for,….
@jhim43 - perhaps spritzing them with perfume is in order then. that would be an interesting venture… specialty flowers engineered to smell like your favorite calogne or perfume.
@huginn - I think you only reply to my comments to try and stir me up.
I didn’t say that I was for or against the man or the boy. I simply pointed out that children after a certain age (i.e. once they’re roughly adult-size) can be a threat if their minds are set on it, especially if they’ve had proper training.
I didn’t say anything about liberal bias. Though the media is supposed to be objective, they aren’t. The writers and newscasters can’t keep from giving their own opinion at every turn. They should be ashamed.
@JessicaAshley7 - Not really. I thought your commen was worth respondoing to because it was particularily stupid and outlandish (this also made it easier to answer).
I could care less about your personal response, but I do appreciate it when people reply to my comments.
@huginn - Interesting. You won’t take a chance unless you think you have an easy target. While I understand that this is supposed to be an insult to me, you shot yourself in the foot instead.
For the record, pretending you’re not trying to get a reaction when every sentence is a direct insult only shows your ignorance, if not painting yourself out to be a total asshole.
That is just wrong. If the boy was unarmed, && then willingly kneeled, he was not a threat.
@JessicaAshley7 - Interesting. You won’t take a chance unless you think you have an easy target.
I thought your comment was particularily egregious and deserved a rebuttal. I respond to comments that interest me.
While I understand that this is supposed to be an insult to me, you shot yourself in the foot instead.
I don’t care about your feelings or how you take my response.
For the record, pretending you’re not trying to get a reaction when every sentence is a direct insult only shows your ignorance, if not painting yourself out to be a total asshole.
I’m really not pretending. I really take your initial comment to be so lame and this line of discussion to be so inconsequential that I’m really pretty indifferent about it.
I just regret that there isn’t more depth to the topic of this ThoeCafe entry to take this discussion somewhere substantive.
@laurenmaureen -
holy SHIT. that man must have been crazy.
a) they only wanted a snack… that’s so unbelievably harmless. it’s not like they were stealing valuables or anything…
a) go to the 711 and get one, dont invade someones home. security in the home is a sacred right, snacks are not. far from unbelievably harmless it says something unbelievably sinister that they consider their desire for a snack to be more valuable than his sacred right to a secure home.
b) the boy was 13 years old. didn’t know any better.
b)meanwhile 13 yearolds are doing drugs selling drugs, getting pregnant and killing people. bullshit, i know 5 year olds who understand “if it isnt yours dont touch it” how much more does this apply to someones home, and how much more should a 13 year old be able to understand that concept.
c) when you’re on your knees with your back facing someone, you’re so harmless. there’s nothing the boy could have done. especially against an armed man.
c) unless he is armed, which being awakened by intruders in the dark the homeowner would have no way to know that he wasnt or outnumbers the homeowner which he did, 4 to 1. unless you were there to witness the home invaders behavior you have no way of judging what he could or could not have done to become a threat.
the man has no excuse.
epic fail
that is not self-defense!
this is ridiculous.
@JessicaAshley7 - you’re arguing with someone who’s argument against the homeowner started “we know NOW that they were unarmed” as though information is retroactive. as long as i’ve been watching comments on this board this particular poster has rarely used honest debate techniques.
Well after being robbed repeatedly he may have overreacted but I bet it’s a while before he gets robbed again.
@huginn - all sources are biased because all reporters are human and all media outlets have financial backers who sway agenda and slant. especially during this election season i’ve watched the media become so blatantly obvious in their unapologetic bias in their presentations of the two candidates and their running mates that i am thoroughly disgusted with nearly every major media source out there. the only people who have been truly willing to be open minded and fair are the foreign press.
Nope. That’s execution! And he was 13? Good lord, are grown men really THAT scared of kids? Sure, you should protect yourself and your property, but maybe you should draw the line at when they clearly have surrendered…
Everyone where that trailer park trash guy must be crazy, because you don’t break into someone’s place for a fucking SNACK and you don’t KILL someone who’s 13 years old!! Not even if they had RABIES would they be threatening to his life.
Go back and READ the article closely.
Here’s an old man whose home had been repeatedly broken into.
The odds were 4-to-1.
This old man was very scared, to be sure.
I don’t say that shooting this kid was justified, but how many times must a person’s house be violated before they get angry/scared/defiant enough to defend it?
Until you have been burglarized yourself, you have no idea how scary it is and how violated you will feel. When you can’t even feel safe in your own house, what do you do? You get a gun.
I’ll bet the other three punks won’t be breaking into anyone’s house for a long time. Well, maybe they will as it sounds like these kids are on the path to prison. So young to be burglars. So sad that they are considered the victims here, and not the old man.
@darkoozeripple - agreed
He ended up shooting the kid execution style???? He should have been found guilty. He should have only been acquitted if he snuck up on the kid and shot him. That law does need to be fixed…….
That is ridiculas. There is no way that the boy could have been a threat to the man because if he was willing to get on his knees and turn around that showed no threat. I think the man should have just told them to get on their knees and called the police.
I don’t think so, I think it’s a bunch of crap.
Doesn’t that law stipulate eminent danger and harm? Clearly the boy was not in any position to pose as a threat.
I’m surprised everyone seems to think this was execution style. While the death of a thirteen year old is tragic its hardly the same story I read in the paper. There were four of them not just one. He was not according to the man who shot him kneeling he was lunging and he “feared for his life.” And how are you supposed to know four boys are robbing your house for snacks? Do they come in and say “hey we’re here to rob your fridge don’t shoot! Its harmless! The guy had been robbed repeatedly and had had enough. Why aren’t the parents on trial for not teaching their kids its not ok to rob an old man’s house. And then the kid himself who at thirteen definitely knows right from wrong. And still chose to break into the house anyway and now horribly has to bear the ultimate consequences of his actions by his own decision.
And honestly when is the last time no one felt threatened by a group of kids in this particular age group?
No. The man was punishing the kid for breaking in. He didn’t deserve to die. That man wasn’t defending his property or himself when he shot and killed the boy.
Holy crap… me & Texas have a love-hate relationship…
Regardless of whether what the gunman did was morally right, people ought to obey the law. This country has become too soft and complacent with complaining taking up 90% of our administration. I’m in favor of extending this law to all 50 states.
Oh my goodness,I live in Texas and I haven’t heard anyone talking about that.Cause,anyone who make a person get on their knees before they shoot them is not self protection,thats exucution…
abuse
No.
And it sounds like the judge is going against the laws in place in Texas. Clearly the law needs to be changed ‘cus otherwise the ruling sounds hypocritical.
Not in the situation that you propose, but a 13 year old could be a threat. I think this guy went WAY overboard.
I read the article and I tend to believe the guy. He told the kids to sit down and one probably tried to call his bluff. In this man’s case, he had been robbed many times already, he couldn’t let them have the chance to call him on a bluff.
This article offends me a bit they seem to be biasing it against the man.
For someone who has more money to spare like most anyone who has the internet allowing someone to rob you isn’t as big of a deal. For this guy letting people rob him might have meant not getting his next meal. He told the kids to assume the position one hesitated so he had to shoot him. It was in a trailer so it couldn’t have been any distance but close range! Who knows what would have happened if he hadn’t?
if he was “lunging”, but “shot in the back at close range”, did the man like jump over him and shoot him in the back? what was the boy lunging at? the media does tend to leave out details to sell their story better, so there probably could have been a very good reason, but an unarmed brat, even if he had been like lunging for a gun or something, there are different ways to handle the situation than kill him. I dont know all the facts, but i think he should’ve gone for an arm or something.
I fully support the Castle Law, which pretty much states that you can kill anyone who is on your property without permission.
That man did NOT know that it was just some punk-ass kid in his home. What if it WAS an armed rapist-robber-murderer? Then the man would be given a hearty slap on the back and given the key to the city.
Those kids were teenagers and could have EASILY ganged up on that man if he was unarmed. He had every right. Those kids shouldn’t have been breaking the law by entering someone else’s house in the first place. They deserved to get shot. He was defending his private property and his person. I say good for him. I’d give him a hug if I saw him on the street. That’s a real American hero right there. Fight for yourself, guys!
@stealingthesun - When you have a weapon, especially a shot gun, you have a chance of taking a limb off, MOST especially if he was packing safety rounds. (Bullets designed to not go through walls, to protect people in other rooms of the house or even the next trailer over) Then the poor guy would have STILL been sued for taking the kid’s arm off, and the kids were the ones in the wrong. Life’s a bitch, the poor guy was fucked either way because the system is so flawed. Those kids deserved it.
I’m training to be a corrections officer, and my dad’s a cop. He was trained, and TOLD, if you are threatened, you don’t aim to wound. Period. You should aim to kill if it comes down to having to even point a gun at someone. That stuff about “aim to wound” you see on TV isn’t accurate at all.
@Aiyoku_Angel - i don’t watch tv, but i didnt know that about shotguns. thanx. i do agree that Texas has the right idea- castle law and death penalty should be universal
Sounds a bit extreme to me.
That doesn’t sound like self-defense as much as execution. This man should have been punished for it – a thirteen year old boy kneeling helpless on the ground is no longer a threat. What a shame.
he shot the kid IN THE BACK… that’s MURDER cuz the boy wasn’t going towards him… WTF
No and it was not necessary to kill that boy.
I’ve seen 13 year olds who are close to 6-ft tall. If there were a whole slew of boys in his house, I find it completely understandable that he would need to execute one of them to even the odds and feel safer. The boys broke in and deserved to be injured/killed in this situation. If you live in Texas, you know that everybody is armed.
I hope that punk ass kid suffered greatly before being executed.
WTF
This is why I hate living in Texas.
Don’t cha know that in Texas shooting someone in the back while they are kneeling in front of you is ALWAYS an act of self defense? Where have ya been?
Texas is a great state no?
I don’t think so. Very few young men can pose a threat to a full-grown man unless they’re armed. It’s a dumb reason to break into someone’s home for a snack, but killing the boy for it? That’s what I call overkill!
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
First of all it was a 13 year old boy… maybe I just don’t know 13 year old boys very well but I would hope a grown man with a gun wouldn’t fear for his life because of a 13 year old boy, who was unarmed and on his knees. And the boy couldn’t do anything if he was on his knees with a gun to the back of his head. its not self defense if you force them on their knees and shoot them in the back of the head, especially if they aren’t armed.
Now if the guy had shot the boy while he was trying to take off with his 52″ plasma television, his blu-ray player, his blue-ray video collection, his laptop and digital camera all while waving a gun around madly yelling he would shoot anything that moved and then slash them repeatedly with his samurai sword then yes, i believe that it would be ok to shoot the kid.
a 13 year old boy stealing a snack is not a threat to my life, i would just let them have the food. they must be hungry and not get food at home.
Speaking as a former cop, I can tell you that it is certainly possible. If the suspect hasn’t been searched for weapons yet and makes a move for a possible concealed weapon- and you can’t see what he has in his hand- you can be in imminent peril of your life. Remember, those young men had already committed a felony by breaking into a man’s home. Underaged or not, when a possible firearm is involved and under those circumstances, the suspects must be regarded as armed and dangerous until otherwise determined. Many good men have been shot and killed because of the natural reluctance of an adult to use deadly force on a juvenile. Juvenile criminals are, potentially, the most dangerous of all. A sad fact- but true.