Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2014, 12:49   #61
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Maybe it was a "negligent discharge".

The 2:30 AM helps the dad a little - better than 2:30 in the afternoon.


Man sees stranger in his home at 2:30 AM - confronts him with gun - tells him to not move - stranger makes a move - man shoots stranger -

That would be considered a good shoot in Texas.

There are obviously additional facts in this case - but the dad has a chance at walking -
The way I read the story is that the girl was showing no signs of distress. The father learned that there was somebody in her room though his other children and went to check it out. When confronted, the girl lied, the boy moved, and got shot.

Perhaps the father wasn't thinking clearly, and if he took a breath, he probably would have figured out that his daughter invited the boy into her bed. I hate to call the father an idiot here, because he could have very well felt that his daughter was in danger. And the daughter certainly did her part as well. But in the end, he killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing more than what millions of kids his age do, and apparently had no nefarious intent. He will likely pay for this in one way or another, and he completely deserves it.
sputnik767 is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 12:51   #62
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Maybe it was a "negligent discharge".
Pretty sure theres no 'maybe' about the, uh, negligent discharge going on here.
John Rambo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 12:52   #63
KalashniKEV
Senior Member
 
KalashniKEV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NoVA
Posts: 5,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
For not being clairvoyant? I disagree.
Clairvoyance is not a requirement to adjudicate deadly force.

If you don't understand the use of force continuum, then you are not ready to bear the responsibility of owning arms that you might possibly be called upon to use in a defensive situation.
KalashniKEV is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 12:53   #64
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
There's a big part of the story you're still skipping over.

Dad walked in and found the dude IN BED with the daughter.

Daughter told him "No, we weren't in bed, I don't know him."

Dad SAW them in bed, but he still bought his daughter's BS story and shot.



Unless the article is reporting it wrong (and that's always, ALWAYS a possibility), the dad shot because he wanted to believe his daughter was an angel, a helpless victim, as opposed to trusting what he himself saw.

That is just flat out stupid, and that stupidity led him to kill someone.

You'll have to show me where the article reported that he shot because he wanted to believe his daughter was an angel and a helpless victim.

You appear to be concentrating on one point and skipping the other relevant points. You also apparently have the ability to know what the father thought and his intentions were. That will have to be proven and until some evidence comes out to substantiate that, he's gonna walk. I see no evidence of that in the linked article.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 12:54   #65
G36's Rule
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spring, TX.
Posts: 15,029
He was 17, she was 16 and below the age of consent. So he had no business there, and she had no right to let him in.

She says she doesn't know him, so now it is Rape/rape and not statutory rape...



Dad says he made a move...

Dad gets No Billed and the young men around here learn a hard lesson.
G36's Rule is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:06   #66
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashniKEV View Post
Clairvoyance is not a requirement to adjudicate deadly force.

If you don't understand the use of force continuum, then you are not ready to bear the responsibility of owning arms that you might possibly be called upon to use in a defensive situation.

Nice try. We will see how good your fortune telling capabilities are when more is released on what happened here. I have no doubt there will be an investigation. As far as what facts have been reported so far, the father acted reasonably. When and if additional facts are released, that may change.

It appears you are confusing the reasonableness standard and force continuum. The use of force continuum is usually applied to LE, not civilians. If you don't understand the differences and how they relate, you might want to do a little resarch. There is plenty out there for you to educate yourself on.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:30   #67
KalashniKEV
Senior Member
 
KalashniKEV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NoVA
Posts: 5,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
As far as what facts have been reported so far, the father acted reasonably.
Nice try to you- his actions were not those of a reasonable person.

Would you send lead without ascertaining hostile intent?

Well, from your comments, I suppose you would... and you'd be just as screwed as this guy.

Until we know more about a justification to use deadly force, it seems like this was likely just his emotions getting the better of him. Obviously he should have never had a gun in the first place if he can not practice self control, and does not know how to responsibly apply deadly force.

Nobody had to die that night.
KalashniKEV is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:31   #68
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by G36's Rule View Post
He was 17, she was 16 and below the age of consent. So he had no business there, and she had no right to let him in.
Be that as it may, she did let him in. This is a case where the kid should have gotten thrown out and the daughter had a talking-to regarding the rules of the house. From all the facts that I ascertained from the article, the boy was not a threat and the father let his emotions get the best of him. It should not have ended the way it did.

While I can certainly blame the 17 yo kid for sneaking into the house despite him having been invited by the girl, it was in no way an offense where he deserved to die. Unless there is more information, the father should not have pulled the trigger.

Last edited by sputnik767; 03-13-2014 at 13:39..
sputnik767 is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:40   #69
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by G36's Rule View Post
He was 17, she was 16 and below the age of consent. So he had no business there, and she had no right to let him in.

She says she doesn't know him, so now it is Rape/rape and not statutory rape...



Dad says he made a move...

Dad gets No Billed and the young men around here learn a hard lesson.
Age of consent in Texas is 17 - so the girl is not old enough to give consent - but the boy was 17 -- so that leaves me wondering -

Does a person need to be 18+ to commit statatory rape?

Does a 17 year old get a pass?
Z71bill is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:41   #70
RagnarDanneskjold
Pirate
 
RagnarDanneskjold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Behind the Tofu Curtain
Posts: 6,952
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by G36's Rule View Post
He was 17, she was 16 and below the age of consent. So he had no business there, and she had no right to let him in.

She says she doesn't know him, so now it is Rape/rape and not statutory rape...



Dad says he made a move...

Dad gets No Billed and the young men around here learn a hard lesson.
Statutory rape doesn't apply, as I understand the law in Texas.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...f-consent.html

Quote:
Texas -The age of consent is 17. The minimum age is 14 with an age differential of 3 years; thus, those who are at least 14 years of age can legally have sex with those less than 3 years older.
__________________
"The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." Thucydides, Greek Historian
RagnarDanneskjold is online now  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:45   #71
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Age of consent in Texas is 17 - so the girl is not old enough to give consent - but the boy was 17 -- so that leaves me wondering -

Does a person need to be 18+ to commit statatory rape?

Does a 17 year old get a pass?
Age of consent isn't the same as age of majority. He's still a minor, also, so it would not be statutory rape.

By Texas law:
Quote:
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor...was not more than three years older than the victim [and] did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offence.
He was less than 3 years older than her, and as reported there is no indication that he used duress, force, or threat against her. Therefore the kid wouldn't have been charged under this law.
__________________
"I'm your priest, your shrink, your main connection to the switchboard of souls. I'm the Magic Man, the Santa Claus of the Subconscious. You say it, you even think it, you can have it." - Lenny Nero

Last edited by WarCry; 03-13-2014 at 13:45..
WarCry is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:51   #72
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashniKEV View Post
Nice try to you- his actions were not those of a reasonable person.

Would you send lead without ascertaining hostile intent?

Well, from your comments, I suppose you would... and you'd be just as screwed as this guy.

Until we know more about a justification to use deadly force, it seems like this was likely just his emotions getting the better of him. Obviously he should have never had a gun in the first place if he can not practice self control, and does not know how to responsibly apply deadly force.

Nobody had to die that night.
The term you need to research now is "totality of circumstances".

Are you implying it wasn't reasonable for him to go into his daughters room armed when another one of his children told him there was someone in his sister's room at 2:00 AM? Are you implying he wasn't acting reasonably when he found an intruder in his daughter's room, someone from the information we have so far, was unknown to him and someone he did not know was in his house? Are you saying he didn't reasonably fear when he had said individual at gun point, told him not to move, and, again from what has been reported, the young man moved making the father believe he was going for a weapon?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 03-13-2014 at 14:00..
whoflungdo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:51   #73
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
There's a big part of the story you're still skipping over.

Dad walked in and found the dude IN BED with the daughter.

Daughter told him "No, we weren't in bed, I don't know him."

Dad SAW them in bed, but he still bought his daughter's BS story and shot.



Unless the article is reporting it wrong (and that's always, ALWAYS a possibility), the dad shot because he wanted to believe his daughter was an angel, a helpless victim, as opposed to trusting what he himself saw.

That is just flat out stupid, and that stupidity led him to kill someone.

I guarantee there are a LOT of missing details. I honestly cannot remember a single high adrenalin moment that was reported with all the necessary details in the first news story.

It will go to a grand jury. They'll figure it out. No need to rush to judgement.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:53   #74
IndyGunFreak
KO Windows
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30,502
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by G36's Rule View Post
He was 17, she was 16 and below the age of consent. So he had no business there, and she had no right to let him in.

She says she doesn't know him, so now it is Rape/rape and not statutory rape...



Dad says he made a move...

Dad gets No Billed and the young men around here learn a hard lesson.
The problem in all this though (other than the fact no crime was committed by the boy), is that she later confesses she DID know him. Her actions very likely set in motion the events that led to her father killing the boy.

If you charge the father, you have to charge the daughter as well.
__________________
Quote:
Ronald Reagan
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
"Man is not free unless Government is limited"
IndyGunFreak is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:53   #75
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by RagnarDanneskjold View Post
Statutory rape doesn't apply, as I understand the law in Texas.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...f-consent.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Age of consent isn't the same as age of majority. He's still a minor, also, so it would not be statutory rape.

By Texas law:


He was less than 3 years older than her, and as reported there is no indication that he used duress, force, or threat against her. Therefore the kid wouldn't have been charged under this law.
I was going to say the same thing from my layman's reading of the Texas law.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 13:58   #76
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
The problem in all this though (other than the fact no crime was committed by the boy), is that she later confesses she DID know him. Her actions very likely set in motion the events that led to her father killing the boy.

If you charge the father, you have to charge the daughter as well.
Agreed. From everything that has been reported so far, the daughter is to blame for the death, not the father.

It can still be argued that the young man bears responsibility too. Sneaking into a teen-aged girls house/room carries significant consequences he had to be aware of.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 14:04   #77
Flying-Dutchman
Senior Member
 
Flying-Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Agreed. From everything that has been reported so far, the daughter is to blame for the death, not the father.

It can still be argued that the young man bears responsibility too. Sneaking into a teen-aged girls house/room carries significant consequences he had to be aware of.
Really, a 17 year old kid is not thinking about the consequences.

What a cowardly fearful wimpy society we have become to use a gun in a situation like this.

Bouncing him off the wall a few times would have been sufficient or a call to his parents.
Flying-Dutchman is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 14:10   #78
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman View Post
Really, a 17 year old kid is not thinking about the consequences.

What a cowardly fearful wimpy society we have become to use a gun in a situation like this.

Bouncing him off the wall a few times would have been sufficient or a call to his parents.
And those consequences teach lessons. Unfortunately, the consequences were a permanent lesson for him.

Feel free not to arm yourself when you are awoken at 2:00 am being told someone is in your daughters room.

It's easy to MMQB this one with all of the known facts afterwards.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 14:19   #79
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
And those consequences teach lessons. Unfortunately, the consequences were a permanent lesson for him.

Feel free not to arm yourself when you are awoken at 2:00 am being told someone is in your daughters room.
Then the kid didn't really learn any lesson, seeing as how he is now dead.

Being armed is fine, but actually shooting is a different story. I have a feeling that finding strange boys in their daughter's room at 2 am happens on a regular basis in this country, and the same goes for the daughters lying to cover up their actions. There is a reason why most of those instances don't end up on the news. Otherwise, there is a pretty good chance that most of us here wouldn't be here right now. Throw the kid out or call his parents, and have a talk with your daughter is as far as this should have gone.

Last edited by sputnik767; 03-13-2014 at 14:21..
sputnik767 is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 14:20   #80
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman View Post
Really, a 17 year old kid is not thinking about the consequences.

What a cowardly fearful wimpy society we have become to use a gun in a situation like this.
While I do think this dad will go to prison based on the story as reported thus far, I don't agree with your assessment of the broader situation. Because of his "cowardly, fearful, wimpy" use of a gun, we still have the ability to ask George Zimmerman for his opinion of the risk a "17 year old kid" who's "not thinking about consequences" might be.

It's not cowardly for the father in this case to have pulled the gun. As wrong as (it appears) he was to pull the trigger, that was brash and ill-thought, but still not cowardly.

Had he pulled the gun and held the kid until the cops got there, we wouldn't be here discussing it on the forum. Had he shot the kid after hearing his daughter screaming bloody murder for help, we likely wouldn't be talking about it except for maybe an "attaboy" here and there.

Again, with the caveat that more details may change my opinion, at this point the dad took it too far, and it seems to have been based on the false statement of his daughter and a father's anger.

It will be interesting to see how the courts play this one out, but I won't be losing any sleep for him if, as I predict, he's convicted and sent away for this.
__________________
"I'm your priest, your shrink, your main connection to the switchboard of souls. I'm the Magic Man, the Santa Claus of the Subconscious. You say it, you even think it, you can have it." - Lenny Nero
WarCry is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:36.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 776
170 Members
606 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31