Pawn shop owner shoots 14-year-old alleged burglar; owner says he gave boy warning but it was ignored

A leg wound can be fatal.

From a tactical standpoint, shooting the kid in the leg is a mistake.

Either shoot him in the head or in the torso/abdomen. You cannot be sure the kid is alone and must assume the worst (he has help).

Seriously incapacitating the known intruder renders him incapable of putting up more of a threat.

It also puts other accomplices in the position of having to stage a rescue, continuing their attack(s) or retreating. If they try a rescue, then you know absolutely what position they will try to reach.

If they continue to attack, then you know the downed intruder will be of no material or tactical benefit to them.

Shooting the arms, legs, hands, feet, grazing or firing warning-shots are almost always a mistake.

Furthermore, the kid will likely forget the "seriousness" of the incident and use the scars to further his thug-rep. If he didn't get truly maimed, he'll learn nothing of the experience.

From a tactical standpoint, shooting the kid in the leg is a mistake.

True - as a CWP holder, you are trained to shoot center mass...easier to hit and more stopping power, though I understand that the man may have been aiming as such and through nervousness, hit the leg.

Agree with his inquiry as to what a kid was doing on the streets at 4am - wonderful display of parenting.

Another unfortunate incident ended well...AMEN!

codesculptor......please. Vietnam is over. I would be willing to bet that this kid has learned his lesson, and I am not so sure that you should be shooting kids in the head or the torso unless they shoot at you first....what if he'd have been killed, then the shop owner would have to live with that the rest of his life. knowing that he killed a stupid kid trying to break in his store. this is not the front lines of Iraq/Afghanistan. Jesus christ. Shoot him in the leg, so he can't do any damage or inflict injury, call the cops, and have him arrested. Seems like the shop owner did the best thing he could here.

this is not the front lines of Iraq/Afghanistan.

Spoken like someone who lives in a protected "gated" community.

Here is a news flash for you, there are MORE deaths in this country due to violence on the streets every year than the combined deaths of both of those wars.

gated community? not hardly.

You could argue having a dead suspect is always better than a wounded one for the simple reason that you've just eliminated the only other person (assuming they are alone) to counter your story to the police.

Plus... a dead guy can't sue you ;)

getreal - You are wrong. Read the story again. The "kid" (at 14 he's no longer a "kid") is from the area. He no doubt knew who the owner of the store was. He was verbally notified that the owner was in the store - yet he continued his attempts to break in.

That is evidence of a knothead who means to do harm, who cannot be simply deterred.

So if the kid gets in - he sees an old man - takes one of his pipes and charges the old man... (remember he's already proven he's a knothead!)

After he's killed or maimed the store owner, he then has access to all the guns and ammunition he can carry... pawn shops do a good business in guns.

Would YOU want this little dickhead running around with GUNS? I agree with CodeSculptor - center mass is best. And if your first round knocks him down, and he gets up and keeps coming, he either is wearing some kind of protection, or he's on crack - and you shift to the head shot... or die. Your choice.

Nofluer,

Way to "what if" the situation. Heres one for you, what if he was trying to steal some money to pay for his little sister who is dying of cancer, and he is an honor student who helps the elderly and is a genius who would one day go on to cure cancer. Are you against a cure for cancer?

"what if"

I don't care if you're the "dickhead" in Nofluer's comment or the honor role student in MTLGuy's. You attempt to break in the door of my business "with irons and pipes" regardless the intent, you are committing a crime, and if I feel my life is in jeopardy (which, based on the content of the story, even I would at 38), you will get shot.

And if you get up again and continue towards me in an aggressive manner, I will put you back down.

Period.

MTL - If we buy all the BS in your "what if" then your kid will never find a cure for cancer 'cause he's too f*cking DUMB - his sister can get FREE medical care. So the facts you outline deny that he's ANY kind of "genius" except in the sarcastic sense.

You can play what if as long as you want - or at least until the kid bashes your head in and then shoots and kills you, his first victim in a long life of killing with the guns he steals from the pawn shop.

If you want to see just HOW dumb your post is, there's a TV show on called "Bait Car". It's where the cops have a fancy ride tricked out with electronics that allow them to shut down the engine and lock the doors so that after the car thieves get stopped, they can't run. My favorite part is the stories the thieves make up... "OH, I was just moving it around the corner. There are a lot of cars that get hit by hit-and-run drivers here." Or, "Well, the owner left the keys in it and I was going to move it to teach him a lesson." One of my favorites, and a repeater, "It's my uncle's car! He SAID I could drive it!"

These kids have a million stories - the cops have heard them all, and they're all BS - just like your what-if! But thanks for the grin!

;-D

Nofluer,

My point was that you and I know the exact same facts about the individual. If you want to jump to the conclusion he is a mass murderer, I can take the same liberties as you and surmise he is a good kid who made a mistake. I can use my summation to justify him having a second chance, which is something most people deserve, your summation simply justifies shooting a 14 year old in the head.

No matter why he 'needed the money', he is breaking into a store with a weapon while the owner is there pointing a gun at him and telling him to leave. Yet he still continues to try to get inside. That definitely does not sound like an honor roll student just making a bad choice. Sounds more like pond scum on the shallow end of the gene pool.

well yee haw... In juvie there will be a whole team of braindead geniuses telling him it was not his fault, maybe even a ambulance chaser trying to add to the till. then in court when he tries to sue the store owner ,a bunch of hand picked racists will find him guilty of a lesser crime he pled too, then the store owner will have to write a check !!! MArk it down children and tell me Im wrong !!!

You forgot the First Rate Educational system that exists in Juvie - the other hard cases who'll teach him what he did wrong so that when he gets out, he can do it again - only better this time.

He can steal a car, ram the door and make a BIG hole to go in, and shotgun the owner while he's yelling for the perp to leave or he'll shoot. Then he can score his guns or whatever he wants and rabbit.

What if, what if? Here's one, what if worms had guns? Then birds wouldn't screw with them...

What ifs are irrelevant. This kid is lucky he survived. I bet if we ask the guy why he didn't aim for the chest he will say "I was aiming for the chest"...or something like I was just trying to scare the kid...fortunately the guy is safe and the kid will live to see another day. Hopefully the kid learns his lesson because if he does not either somone else will get robbed and hurt or this kid will get himself shot again...and next time he could run into someone who will "breathe, relax, aim and squeeze"....

This kid should be the poster child for encouraging people to own guns.

codesculptor......please. Vietnam is over

And exactly what do YOU know about VietNam?

I would be willing to bet that this kid has learned his lesson

Maybe.......................maybe not, this wound could be a badge of honor to this kid.

this is not the front lines of Iraq/Afghanistan

you're right, it's the Streets of New Orleans, Okay Metarie, which is directly across the lake, but regardless, it's the streets of the United States where business owners are FED UP with this kind of @!$%#.

What IF the kid had help? What if they were armed. It's the wee hours of the morning here, do you think this little wannabe gangster was out walking his dog?

It really does sound like you've lived a very protected and sheltered life.

SHOOT - - - TO - - - KILL

Semper Fi

Dylan - USCDF

There's no lake seperating New Orleans and Metairie.

Coorrect, my bad, I was thinking of Mandeville, not Metarie. I stand corrected, sorry about that.

I wonder why he didn't aim for the center of mass. Probably inadequate firearms training.

He shot through the door too which is a risky maneuver. One of the first rules of discharging a firearm is "Know what is behind what you are shooting" A passer-byer could have easily have been hit by a ricochet through the door... Good thing it was 4am and probably not many people around.

You are right Mark about this kid... sadly he will be back on the streets in a short amount of time with only a learned-sense of what not to do to get caught/shot next-time (cuz this kid probably WILL attempt a "next-time") sad...

Because hes probably a descent, hard working citizen just trying to scratch out a living just trying to protect his livelyhood. Has no intentions of killing no one, ever !!

Has no intentions of killing no one, ever!

Then why own a firearm? Brandishing a gun to threaten someone is an excellent way to get killed.

He was given a chance - hopefully he'll use it and take a different road.

He was given a "chance" when the shop owner warned him. He did NOT take that "chance" so it is doubtful that he will take the next one he is given.

I think the kid will come back only better equipped next time.

He was given a "chance" when the shop owner warned him. He did NOT take that "chance" so it is doubtful that he will take the next one he is given.

Well, a verbal warning versus a bullet warning is two different things. One can only hope for his sake he finds something positive and views this as an awakening. If not; then.. oh well... He took the chance given him and blew it.

Where's his parents? Good question. What child is in the streets at 4am? Sheesh.

The government is raising his him !!

I think the kid will come back only better equipped next time.

Or his homeboys will looking for revenge.

"Or his homeboys will looking for revenge."

How about instead of picturing a post pubescent 6 foot black kid, you imagine a pre pubescent 14 year old white kid, baby faced and pimply. Are you still so eager to shoot for the head? would you still be so certain he will become a career criminal?

would you still be so certain he will become a career criminal?

If he's out at 4 am trying to break into a pawn shop, then YES!!!!

Well breaking in at noon is probably not the best plan. And has nobody here ever snuck out of the house when they were a teen?

Are you still so eager to shoot for the head?

No - I would still go for the center of mass - head shots are tricky.

You shoot to kill – you fire until the person is down and not moving. Ever wonder why you here of a police shooting where the police have fired 30 to 50 rounds. Training says shoot until the threat is neutralized and then reload if possible.

Movies show the one shot stop – a .38 blasting someone back through the wall with on shot. Doesn’t happen like that in real life. Pistol wounds are typically 85% survivable so just because you hit your target doesn’t mean they drop or stop the fight. A perp on drugs can fight for 14 seconds after being hit in the heart.

The same people that ended up face down in Lake Pontchartrain after Katrina are typical of the ‘shoot them in the leg’ crowd on this post. Not prepared for reality and wouldn’t know what to do if the cell service went out let alone if they had to defend themselves.

I couldn’t face myself every day if one of my family members was killed or injured by an intruder, however I could live with myself knowing that permanently stopped a threat to my family.

Hopefully, he wont do anything even remotely criminal after this.

Don't hold your breath.

After all this kid isn't the brightest crayon in the box.

You hear, "Quit trying to break in to my shop or I'll shoot"..................

What would someone with ANY sense at all do?

true enough, blaq. :)

A nice 12 ga. to the head would work wonders.

At what point should he wait until the cops show up? Should he just yell outside to hang on a few more minutes before the cops make it to the store? Maybe he could wait until the kid was already inside fighting with the old man and then say "time out"?

I am sure somewhere the use of the phrase, "racism" will be put out there in the public eye.

Kids version:

I was just walking down the street to drop off medicine for my sick mother. I was minding my business when I passed a pawn shop and noticed that the door was left ajar. I only attempted to secure the door and all of the sudden I was shot by some evil old man who shouted at me. I am innocent I tell you, these tools I was actually carrying back to a friend who works in the plumbing industry.

I repeat. At what point was OLD MAN'S LIFE THREATEN? The OLD MAN used deadly force against someone he alleges he attempted to break into his store. NOT that teen broke into his store and threaten his life. You have every right to your opinion but your opinion is the law.

Here's a little context that may help you put this into perspective of how some 14 year boys are treated in that part of the USA.

Emmett Louis "Bobo" Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African American boy from Chicago, Illinois, who was murdered^[1] at the age of 14 in Money, Mississippi, a small town in the state's Delta region, after reportedly whistling at a white woman. The murder of Emmett Till was noted as one of the leading events that motivated the American Civil Rights Movement.^[1] The main suspects were acquitted, but later admitted to the murder.

Emmett Till. (2009, October 26). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:55, October 27, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emmett_Till&oldid=322176094

I guess that old man life was threaten as much as that white woman's was in the modern South.

Did the article say the kid was Black?

Did I?

What difference does kid's or shooter's race make? If an American shoots another American the police is obligated to investigate and NOT TAKE A SIDES. No American has the right to use deadly force against another American without legal review.

Comment 12

You MUST be kidding?! The old man gave him more benefit of the doubt than I would have. He hollered at the kid to stop, and the kid didn't stop. What was he supposed to do...wait for the kid to get in and bash him over the head with a pipe?

Yeah, it's the South. Yeah, it's Metarie....a high crime area.

Come on in and sit a spell while I go gather up all the stuff you were going to steal.

Yeah, you did. You are the one posting about Strange Fruit and Emmet Till and the racist hateful South.

It's dark and you are alone in your store when you hear someone breaking in.

You call out but they keep breaking in. Adrenaline is pumping and you are very alarmed and scared.

In this situation, a weapon would be the only thing you would have on your side, and you better use it before he gets the door open.

Because he won't stand there and talk to you. He will bash your head in.

Tricky,

Strange Fruit was written in 1939 by a Jewish man living in New York about lynching in the South. Black weren't the only sufferers vigilantly terrorism. Emmit Till was 14 this teen was 14 too.

The point I'm illustrating is about vigilantism and the civil rights of 14 year olds in the South. Given the historical context of the region it behooves the police to fully investigate the use of deadly force.

How you can read so much innuendo into my prose that you're so willing to interrogate and accuse me of wrong when I've shot no one? Yet you can easily absolve the shooter of wrong doing when he's shot someone. Is it because you agree with shooter -- like the jury that acquitted the murderers of Emmit Till?

I have no reason to believe the shooter story. Not because I don't like him. It's because he's more wrong than the teen was. A 68 year old man should know better. The pawn shop owner got the law tipped in his favor and I'm wondering why. If you or I had done that we'd mostly had been arrested. I know that for a fact. If I can't get away with it why should he?

I am currently assigned to a military post in "the South". Last time I checked the date on my watch said it was 2009 not 1955 Jim Crow Laws and so forth. I think we could review plenty of stats from locations like California or "the West Coast" on the number of teenager who are gang bangers and commit crimes? I am sure we could find dozens of reports about under-age but heavily armed teenaged males running around blowing holes into people.

In other words we should just allow criminals to enter our home or business, steal our property, threaten our lives, and we should shout at them to "get out of here before I call the cops..."

The kid is lucky he is not dead. The parents either need to get control of this kid or get ready to bury him if he hasnt learned his lesson.

I guess that old man life was threaten as much as that white woman's was in the modern South.

I don't what's sadder: that you've characterized Emmitt Till alongside this little hoodlum, or that you don't know better than to characterize Emmitt Till alongside this little hoodlum.

Will you people shut up and check your facts instead of talking out of your the side of your necks? I'm going to cross post this text here because apparently none of people know how the Newsvine or at the very least how the Internet works. If you're not willing to do the work to back up your positions just be quiet. Repeating the same crap over and over is downright silly.

   There are certainly many important moral and pragmatic arguments about
   [1]the propriety of citizens' use of deadly force to defend property
   or to restore order, especially when the normal
   go-through-the-proper-channels means of protecting property or
   deterring crime are absent. [2]Texas law, for instance gives citizens
   a fairly broad right to use deadly force to defend both their property
   and, in many instances, others' property, even under normal
   conditions.



   Based on my quick glance at the statutes, though, I doubt that even
   the Texas defense would extend simply to shooting looters, chiefly
   because it requires an attempt to protect or recover (recover for the
   benefit of the owner, I assume) specific property. The shooting of
   looters of others' property isn't really aimed at or likely to recover
   that property for the owner's benefit. Even if the looter can't get
   away with the TV set, it's unlikely that the owner of the TV set will
   get it back that way; and shooting for the purpose of generally
   deterring others' misconduct (as opposed to, for instance, shooting
   for the purpose of specifically deterring people who are right near
   the target from looting that particular place) probably isn't covered
   under Texas law. Moreover, there is still a moral question as to the
   propriety of such shooting, and the practical matters that [3]Orin
   raises (and I lean towards sharing Orin's concerns).



   But in any event, that's Texas law, not Louisiana law; and it might be
   worth remembering that, under Louisiana law -- which generally (with
   some exceptions not applicable here) doesn't allow the use of deadly
   force to defend property -- the shooting of looters by private
   citizens is a crime: the crime of murder. Some might argue that it
   shouldn't be a crime, either because the Texas rule (or an even
   broader version of it) is generally right, or because when civil
   authority collapses citizens have to be able to protect their property
   (if they're shooting people who are looting their own property) or try
   to restore order more broadly. And that's all well and good for blogs.
   But if you are ever put in this position yourself (and I hope none of
   us ever will be), you might want to keep in mind that, in most states
   and probably even in Texas, the current criminal law is very much not
   on your side.

References



   1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_28-2005_09_03.shtml#1125599174
   2. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
   3. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_28-2005_09_03.shtml#1125599174

Kokayi, you are perfectly within your rights to allow someone to break into your home and kill you.

The rest of us will protect ourselves. We will see who comes out better for it in the end. OH, right. You already let the guy kill you. Never mind.

I'm not sure why this is an issue...it's simple Castle Doctrine, to which we would want to look directly at Louisiana law:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

The boy is lucky he's been given the chance to learn from his mistakes. Hopefully in the future he won't troll the streets at 4am looking to break into stores...hopefully.

Sarcasm and and stupidity both start with the letter 'S'

You can't use deadly force without being threaten with deadly force. I suggest you don't let your sarcasm lead you into stupidly believing you're local laws are as backwards as those in NOLA.

You can't use deadly force without being threaten with deadly force

My state you can. If you are in your house - and not conducting illegal business - and a person kicks in the door - you can shoot. The threat of bodily injury is sufficient to warrant lethal defense.

Why should I or my family have to live in fear in our own homes with no means to protect ourselves?

Thinking that the shop owner is wrong or they should have aimed for the leg makes for great conversation these post but reality is a harsh mistress. Just remember that the wolves need the sheep to survive, the idea that 911 is all the protection you need makes you one big meal.

See #12.10 - Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:29 PM EDT

Kokayi-I saw it.

It's because he's more wrong than the teen was. A 68 year old man should know better. The pawn shop owner got the law tipped in his favor and I'm wondering why. If you or I had done that we'd mostly had been arrested. I know that for a fact. If I can't get away with it why should he?

You have a funny way of judging this situation. The 68 year old man was in his store minding his own business-the teenager's choices were responsible for his injury. So how do you deduce that the teenager was more right than the store owner?

Right Zen,

These people are scary. Look at the place It's very well barricaded. I don't see how the teen could have gotten in with a crowbar.

Ignorence is bliss... take a CW class... learn something about the subject before you spout off.

Everyone is best off with You Two being and staying unarmed, quick hit; If you shoot to wound, the probability of a missed shot endangering anyone downrange goes up at a steep rate. Double-Tap, Center Mass, Drop The Aggressor... it is not rocket science, it is survival.

Then I think you should stick with your favorite topic BLISS.

quite frankly shouldn't be allowed to own guns as you clearly have no respect for them. i'm wonderin' how many of you guys were "punks" as teenagers?

I will admit to doing lots of stupid things in my youth, I wasn't quite a "punk" like this one.

Fortunately the military straightened me out, it ALSO taught me EXACTLY what many on here are saying as far as firearms control "center mass, man, center mass". Put em down and make SURE they don't get back up.

I will admit to doing lots of stupid things in my youth, I wasn't quite a "punk" like this one. Fortunately the military straightened me out, it ALSO taught me EXACTLY what many on here are saying as far as firearms control "center mass, man, center mass". Put em down and make SURE they don't get back up.

Well, if the military straightened you out then perhaps there's hope for him as well.

I am a believer that people CAN be redeemed. I don't know this child from Adam, so I can't say if he's one of those who will learn from this and seek redemption and betterment for his own good, or if he'll take the other more desperate path and be a career criminal. Who knows... however, I do know right now this is a 14 year old child who doesn't and didn't deserve to die for breaking into a store with a crowbar - particularly if he didn't have a gun or knife which may mean he didn't intend to kill anyone. Or did I miss that in the story - did he have a gun? I'm also going to go out on a limb and assume he may have thought the store would not be occupied at 4am... being he's still a child with immature thought processes. Hell... who really knows; I sure don't... For now, though, my stance (and until he proves different) is that he's lucky to be alive (damneddddddd lucky and some people can and DO turn their lives around. Stick his arse in juvy till he's 18 and see what happens. If he doesn't take the chance he's given then I'll say do what you will. Kids do stupid things and a punk is a punk - some worse ... some not quite bad. Time.

:)

Oops, Blaq. I know. I thought about that after I typed in my response. Oh well. I take my sugar with the lumps. And....

In the words of Edmond from The Count of Monte Cristo: "Do your worst, for I will do mine."

LOL!

Lois-Lane,

I think you're basing your assessment of a 14 year old "child" on the way it used to be when possibly you and I were younger.

Check out this video which shows a disturbing case from Georgia involving third graders (8,9, and 10 year olds) who elaborately plotted to kill their schoolteacher for reprimanding a student for standing on a chair.

http://i.abcnews.com/WN/story?id=4576676&page=1

Or take for example August Felix, a homeless person that was beaten to death one night.

Within three months, two 16-year-olds and three 15-year-olds had been charged with second-degree homicide in the March 26, 2006, attack. The motive? "I don't think there was a motive, other than, 'Let's beat someone up,' " said Sergeant Barbara Jones, a police spokeswoman.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/09/unprovoked_beatings_of_homeless_soaring_report_says/

or William Gorzynski, a 15 year old that decided to stab his younger brother to death with a kitchen knife.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Teen-Stabs-Brother-to-Death-Police-66193187.html

or Michael Brewer, a 15 year old who had a group by teens, one of which being 13, pour rubbing alcohol all over him and burn him alive. This was started from an argument over a video game, and was escalated because one of the five stole the victim's dad's bicycle. When he tried to get it back, they tried to burn him alive.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Youngest-Burn-Boy-Attacker-Competent-Judge-65220937.html

The stories don't end there, this is merely a very small sample I could quickly muster from memory...

A 14 year old was attempting to break into a store where the man felt his life was in jeopardy. The act was illegal and according to the law, the man had the right to defend himself with force. He warned the young man that he was armed and the crime continued. The boy was shot.

As I said before - hopefully the boy will have learned the error of his ways and will now march to a better tune.

wow some of you nra ppl are real standup americans

I appreciate the comment. We are the Americans that stand up when the going gets tough. So many people with this anti-gun, anti-defense mindset are why the NRA types have to stand up and defend the country or our families.

As a society some people have evolved into a food source for the predators. This is the type of person that sits curled into a ball in the corner rocking back-and-forth because the Starbucks is closed and they don’t have Wi-Fi access. They are the type of person that can spend 10 minutes rattling off their favorite fluffy coffee drink order but could change a pistol magazine to save their life.

Frankly most of the people on this post are tired of the castrated folks who would hide in the closet, sitting in a puddle of their own urine, desperately calling 911 because some thug just kicked in their door and is raping their wife. It isn’t about being ‘hell bent on popping off a round’, it is about having the skills to face the people that threaten our families with equal or greater force.

They say that people never rise to the occasion – they just sink to the lowest level of their training. If being able to find free Wi-Fi ranks at the top of your list of life skills I feel sorry for you. If being able to draw, neutralize your threat, or clear a jam during a high stress period is a skill-set you desire than I am in your corner.

The world has enough sheep – try being a sheepdog.

Reply to Shawn. I believe from what you just stated in 16.8 that we're in agreement. I'm not angry the boy was shot, because he did commit an illegal act and with that act he owns the consequences; I'm just thankful that he isn't dead. He probably got what he deserved when he was shot - but I don't believe (as some posters have stated quite clearly on here) that he deserved to be killed and I also do believe (as stated above) in redemption - that all is never a lost cause - it can be but sometimes it's not. All the double-taps and center-mass talk is not my thing. Not at that age and for the crime he committed - breaking with intent to enter. Now, if he had a weapon then "he gets what he got" and since we're not related I'm not going to show any remorse.

Thank you lois. I really wonder how many of the double tap blah blah blah, have watched the life slip from someones terrified eyes? and in this case a kids eyes. It is a horrible experience I would not wish on anybody. I hope this boy turns around and does good things.

Thank you, MTLGuy :)

I wonder that also. Big, bad talk? or just murderers at heart themselves?

My father served 2 tours in Viet Nam - and he surely never laughed about it, nor did he seek joy from killing someone- even in self-defense. He did what he had to do but it wasn't funny then and it isn't funny now. hmmmm.

or just murderers at heart themselves?

Is it better to just let the criminals do whatever they want and HOPE that when they get older they will change their ways?

Lois-Lane,

I'm with you on what you're saying, trust me there...there's nothing more disturbing than the notion of having to take another person's life - it's something I fortunately haven't had to experience and honestly...pray I never have to. That said though, if someone feels my life or my families life isn't worth what's in my pocket at the time, I'll do what I have to do to protect my family, regardless the psychological strain it will definitely put on me after the fact.

To note: my comment regarding "center-mass" was simply a response from a prior note saying you should aim for a leg...something you should never do based on education and training.

This person did have a weapon, "iron bars and pipes" according to the story, and as such, was armed with a deadly weapon.

There is definitely the chance that this young man can turn his life around and as I've said repeatedly, I truly hope he does. He may change the mind of one of his "friends" that is thinking of doing the same thing.

Here's a quick hypothetical though, lets say I presume that there's no one at your home right now and try to break down your front door with a iron bar and pipe in hand; smashing in the door while, unknowingly, you are sitting inside working from home. You have no idea if I knew you were inside (or even if I cared). I may not mean you any harm whatsoever but could just be interested in robbing you blind. However, as you happened to be home at the time, you're life is now put in jeapordy.

I'm going to guess, based on the remainder of your posting:

Now, if he had a weapon then "he gets what he got" and since we're not related I'm not going to show any remorse.

that you would shoot as well.

NO ONE wants to shoot or kill a 14 year old, but when someone (of any age) threatens your life with deadly weapon in hand, it is you right to do whatever you can within the letter of the law of your city and state to prevent it from happening.

or just murderers at heart themselves?

Oh brother (*rolls eyes*) It is really very simple: given the option of watching the life drain out of some punk or of one's own child (or oneself), most people find the former to be the more palatable option. You don't place yourself or those under your care at risk trying to do your best imitation of a military sharp shooter. Most people can't hit the broadside of a barn while firing in a state of fear. So if you have a gun, shoot for the biggest mass and keep shooting. Most of your shots are likely to miss anyway. But it is always better to end a criminal's life and live with the remorse, than to be killed by someone committing a crime.

At age 14 this person was old enough to do his level best to break into an establishment, even after he learned it was inhabited. There is NO reason to believe he was going to politely ask for a piece of pie from the proprieter once he got inside. He was already armed with pipes and bars -- and he knew it.

Shawn,

Said weapon also happens to be a tool. He wasnt armed with a knife or gun, and chose a time where conflict was unlikely. Had he been a violent criminal seeking blood he could have easily found a target through a mugging , home invasion etc. he also chose a pawn shop, not exactly a morally superiour business or pillar of the community.

And as to your example of someone coming into the back of a home, call the cops, call your neighbours and leave by the front door. Why have a conflict over material possesions which can be replaced? so many comments I read here never take into account that they may be on the losing end of a gun battle. So is it worth widowing a wife or leaving kids fatherless for some electronics or cash? my answer is no. If someone is determined to hurt my family I will fight, you want my possesions? go right ahead, I have a good job and even better insurance.

MTL

he also chose a pawn shop, not exactly a morally superiour business or pillar of the community.

While I am no big fan of pawn shops they DO provide a needed service to MANY communities.

I've been short on marking my bills before and have had to utilize their services and was darn glad there was someplace that I could take something of value, get some cash to tide myself over and be able to get my belongings back from them for what they loaned me and a small additional charge.

For MANY folks they are also a way to get better things than they can afford to buy new.

I forgot which poster said that they have some really great pawn shops in Las Vegas. :)

Ok to be Clear, a double tap, center mass is the training most gunners receive... granted that wounds such as that, can lead to the death of the subject, but not all the time. It is just the most effective and likely way the put the threat down, and for the safety of those in the vicinity of the altercation.

If I was advocating the unambiguous termination of the subjects life I would have identified the Mozambique Technique (Double Tap Center Mass, Then a Bonus Shot to the Brain-Pan). I do not advocate that technique in the civilian world, but on the battle field... Hellz Yeah!

Aloha All

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay. LOL

What you don't seem to understand or get is that the LAW ABIDING citizens of this country are sick and tired of the criminals.

AMEN!

Yes, I probably would but I would also (if I possibly could) not choose to execute the child - if I saw he was maimed - I wouldn't keep shooting until saw his last breath evaporate as some pointed out on here.

I'm with you there, 110%.

There was a case a month or two ago where the shop keeper came back over to the young man that had tried to rob him, that had already been shot and that was flat out on the floor...and shot him again, point blank - execution style.

I don't know the outcome but was stunned at the follow through by the shopkeeper (was on security camera). You do what you need to do defuse the situation, and then you stop.

Thanks for the back-and-forth...

Several studies have shown that the typical home owner (without military, police, expert weapons safety training) cannot just shoot once because of the amount of adrenalin created because of the situation. Typically they empty the cylinder, clip, etc in the direction of the threat, hitting their target very few times.

I don't know anything about the shopkeeper incident, however, it makes me wonder if it had anything to do with what the studies have shown.

Yep, unfortunately he lived so no Darwin award :(.