Boy, 7, dies in apparent trespass shooting

[Jiro]

Apologies. I was a bit distracted last night due to the loss of a dear friend. A quick Google search will, however, confirm the information I posted.

I'm sorry but you're still wrong. A quick google search does not do any good for you. I have taken courses and trainings to understand this matter. It makes a world of difference.

We weren't discussing open carry; we were discussing concealed carry. If one is carrying a weapon openly, then it is obvious to all that they have a weapon. One would not have to guess who has a weapon and who doesn't as they pass them on the street. You stated that Cheri no doubt passed thousands of people on the street who were legally carrying a concealed weapon. I posted the information to show you that your assumption was incorrect.

and do you exactly know what kind of legal responsibility, training and mindset does it entail in having CCW? Vigilante is NOT encouraged nor allowed. Please educate yourself on CCW social responsibility and the legality of it.

Given your vigilante attitude regarding concealed carry and your right to fire on anyone, it concerns me a great deal that you are permitted to carry a weapon in my state.

I'm sorry but you're incredibly wrong on that part. See above. We are constantly drilled and trained and told NOT to get involved in ANY conflicts and to avoid conflicts. The use of lethal weapon is ABSOLUTELY LAST RESORT. Ever wonder why there is RARELY news of CCW incident in news? Where in the god's name did you ever get the misconception of CCW holder as vigilantes? Movies???? I'm sorry but we're not Jack Bauer nor Clint Eastwood nor Bruce Willis nor anybody. We're just law-abiding, responsible citizens with better firearm trainings than police officers.

And your assumtption regarding the number of persons walking down the street with a concealed weapon is nothing more that projection on your part. You are projecting your vigilante attittude on all other citizens, and I thank God that the majority certainly do not feel the need to have a gun in their possession when they are on the way to the post office to mail a letter.

and I thank God that the community is safer because of CCW status. oh btw - we do not pack the heat all the time. I don't either.

 

[naisho]

There is virtually no justification for shooting at people who are not on your property, nor posing any threat to you. Period. Time of day is not an issue. Whether or not they saw a child in the car is not an issue. There is no justification under the law of any state, nor from a logical perspective, of the fact the a family was shot at on a road. None whatsoever. To attempt any explanation is to undermine the importance of this child's death, and the total disregard for life displayed by this couple.

The child was most likely collateral damage. The couple did do reckless shooting, and this overrides everything.

The fact still remains that this is during the dusk, within a good distance. These two factors are what I am saying could have impaired the Muh's judgment in choosing the option to shoot before questioning.

A upholding or patient person would have likely given warning before firing.
The Muh's didn't. So they fail at this, obviously.


However, like I am saying, whether or not they were on the city road or on the Muh's property, the time of the shot was at night, they may have likely not even seen the child. Given the circumstances, if it was in broad daylight I would have a feeling that the outcome would've been somewhat different.

Because one still has to pass federal law in order to even buy a gun, and there is probably likely some state laws required to own one as well.

Again, no one is saying the Muh's are correct in what they are doing. Looking back, probably 100% of this thread believes the shooting was a result of a poor choice made by them.

All I'm saying myself is, had this happened to any other of the million of Americans who also own a firearm, nighttime certainly changes the whole situation.

It's sad for the kid, but the way I see it is that it was most likely he was not the intended target in the first place. It shouldn't be prioritized that they shot the kid with the intent for him die, that's very extreme opinion in this situation. The kid came second from the primary objective.

The result of this loss should not resort to some kind of gun ban or something like that. That would be only the extreme. At most I could see is shortening permit times so they'd have to retake it more often.


Anyway, just wanted to drop my two cents and observations in this thread, see you later.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, times have changed and laws have changed. There are more children killed by gunfire now in the state of Texas, in the United States as a whole, that were killed in 1983. The fact that the deaths are increasing is a blatant statement that something is wrong, terribly wrong.

and automobile deaths went up. suicide deaths went up. teen violence went up. and the gun deaths SLOWLY went up and it's still insignificant compared to those other statistic. yep something is wrong... terribly wrong....... due to a misguided agenda where people focus on insignificant problems when there are other urgent, bigger problems being overlooked.

 

[jillio]

I'm sorry but you're still wrong. A quick google search does not do any good for you. I have taken courses and trainings to understand this matter. It makes a world of difference.

If you want to know where I got the information regarding Ohio's CCW it does. And that is what you were complaining about. It doesn't take training to understand specific language in black and white.

and do you exactly know what kind of legal responsibility, training and mindset does it entail in having CCW? Vigilante is NOT encouraged nor allowed. Please educate yourself on CCW social responsibility and the legality of it.

Then you need to stop posting such language that reeks of vigilantism.
I'm sorry but you're incredibly wrong on that part. See above. We are constantly drilled and trained and told NOT to get involved in ANY conflicts and to avoid conflicts. The use of lethal weapon is ABSOLUTELY LAST RESORT.
Constantly drilled and trained? What are you talking about. CCW does not require continuing education courses. Law enforcement receives such, but then, you are not an LEO. You are nothing more than a average citizen.

Ever wonder why there is RARELY news of CCW incident in news? Where in the god's name did you ever get the misconception of CCW holder as vigilantes? Movies???? I'm sorry but we're not Jack Bauer nor Clint Eastwood nor Bruce Willis nor anybody. We're just law-abiding, responsible citizens with better firearm trainings than police officers.

Did you ever stop to think that not everyone who applies for CCW receives one? And CCW really has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that in the OP, a couple who legally possessed a gun shot into a family on the road (not on their property) and kille a 7 year old child. They were certainly acting as vigilantes. They didn't need a CCW to kill a kid. The law provided them with the means to do so without a CCW.

Better training that LEO's? Keep telling yourself that.:roll:

and I thank God that the community is safer because of CCW status. oh btw - we do not pack the heat all the time. I don't either.

Oh, yeah, the world is much safer because Jiro is packing heat.:roll:

 

[jillio]

The child was most likely collateral damage. The couple did do reckless shooting, and this overrides everything.

The fact still remains that this is during the dusk, within a good distance. These two factors are what I am saying could have impaired the Muh's judgment in choosing the option to shoot before questioning.

A upholding or patient person would have likely given warning before firing.
The Muh's didn't. So they fail at this, obviously.


However, like I am saying, whether or not they were on the city road or on the Muh's property, the time of the shot was at night, they may have likely not even seen the child. Given the circumstances, if it was in broad daylight I would have a feeling that the outcome would've been somewhat different.

Because one still has to pass federal law in order to even buy a gun, and there is probably likely some state laws to require to own one as well.

Again, no one is saying the Muh's are correct in what they are doing. Looking back, probably 100% of this thread believes the shooting was a result of a poor choice made by them.

All I'm saying myself is, had this happened to any other of the million of Americans who also own a firearm, nighttime certainly changes the whole situation. The result of this loss should not resort to some kind of gun ban or something like that.

It's sad for the kid, but the way I see it is that it was most likely he was not the intended target in the first place. It shouldn't be prioritized that they shot the kid with the intent for him die, that's very extreme opinion in this situation. The kid came second from the primary objective.

The darkness had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Muh's had impaired judgement. The sign in front of their house is evidence enough that this couple was not operating with a full deck. Shooting at a family on a road is evidence of the fact that this couple's judgement was severely impaired. It was impaired during the day, and it was impaired during the night.

An innocent child being killed, and then labeled as "collateral damage"? How insulting to the child that lost his life, and to the family that lost a child. Whether he was the intended target or not is not the issue. The issue is that this couple murdered him, and they had the means to do so based on the law of the state. Had this couple been given any kind of psychological evaluation, they no doubt would have been denied the right to own a firearm. And it may be determined, since this is not their first brush with the law, that they were in possession of a firearm illegally as it stands.

 

[jillio]

and automobile deaths went up. suicide deaths went up. teen violence went up. and the gun deaths SLOWLY went up and it's still insignificant compared to those other statistic. yep something is wrong... terribly wrong....... due to a misguided agenda where people focus on insignificant problems when there are other urgent, bigger problems being overlooked.

I can't believe that you are continuing to call the deaths of innocent children "insignificant". And what makes you think that the increase in suicide, and the increase in teen violence, is not directly linked to greater availability of firearms?

 

[Jiro]

If you want to know where I got the information regarding Ohio's CCW it does. And that is what you were complaining about. It doesn't take training to understand specific language in black and white.

Actually yes it does take a training to understand this issue. That's why CCW is a serious responsibility and has stringent requirements.

Then you need to stop posting such language that reeks of vigilantism.

Actually - you need to stop pointing at CCW holders as vigilante. Where did I ever post such language that reeks of vigilantism?

Did you ever stop to think that not everyone who applies for CCW receives one?

THANKS GOD!!!! Heaven forbids that Muhs obtain one!!!!

And CCW really has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that in the OP, a couple who legally possessed a gun shot into a family on the road (not on their property) and kille a 7 year old child. They were certainly acting as vigilantes. They didn't need a CCW to kill a kid. The law provided them with the means to do so without a CCW.

I do agree with you that Muhs are vigilante however - do not confuse Muhs with CCW holders. This is simply a case of tragedy. Just like house with backyard pool, neighbor with pitbull dog, drunk driver on the road, and many more. It is still statistically insignificant.

Better training that LEO's? Keep telling yourself that. :roll:

I'm sorry but it's a fact. Would you like me to prove you wrong like you were wrong about Ohio CCW law?

Oh, yeah, the world is much safer because Jiro is packing heat.:roll:

but i'm not packing any. The world is safer because of second guessing due to gun-friendly laws, Jillio. It's a mind game that wins, not number of people packing the heat.

 

[Jiro]

I can't believe that you are continuing to call the deaths of innocent children "insignificant". And what makes you think that the increase in suicide, and the increase in teen violence, is not directly linked to greater availability of firearms?

drugs? parental abuses? automobiles? cutting? pedophiles?

 

[Jiro]

Vigilanteism certainly isn't the answer. This article proves that. As well as the statistics that show that when a gun is kept in the home, that gun is far more likely to kill a family member or friend of the family than a criminal attempting to do harm.

and the statistic shows that most automobile accidents occur within 3 miles of the drivers' home. Motor Vehicle Accidents are leading cause of death for teenagers. Sorry but it's still statistically insignificant compared to other cases.

 

[naisho]

The darkness had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Muh's had impaired judgement. The sign in front of their house is evidence enough that this couple was not operating with a full deck. Shooting at a family on a road is evidence of the fact that this couple's judgement was severely impaired. It was impaired during the day, and it was impaired during the night.

An innocent child being killed, and then labeled as "collateral damage"? How insulting to the child that lost his life, and to the family that lost a child. Whether he was the intended target or not is not the issue. The issue is that this couple murdered him, and they had the means to do so based on the law of the state. Had this couple been given any kind of psychological evaluation, they no doubt would have been denied the right to own a firearm. And it may be determined, since this is not their first brush with the law, that they were in possession of a firearm illegally as it stands.

One is entitled to their own opinions, just as much as another is entitled to theirs. Got to respect that. I can accept the notion of disagreeing based on individual viewpoints, and do not continually go off tangent with them.

Bolded and underline above, I am one who will observe the facts first before letting human compassion cloud my judgment. The same goes for any jury, and judge, and court case. If you know me by now, facts are an important part of my opinion in things.

 

[Jiro]

The darkness had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Muh's had impaired judgement. The sign in front of their house is evidence enough that this couple was not operating with a full deck. Shooting at a family on a road is evidence of the fact that this couple's judgement was severely impaired. It was impaired during the day, and it was impaired during the night.

It was impaired during the day? How did you make such psychological evaluation? Did you interview them? Like I said - this is a case of tragedy just as much as driver making human error which resulting in accident where other factors may have contributed to it such as weather, daylight/night time, so on.

An innocent child being killed, and then labeled as "collateral damage"? How insulting to the child that lost his life, and to the family that lost a child. Whether he was the intended target or not is not the issue. The issue is that this couple murdered him, and they had the means to do so based on the law of the state. Had this couple been given any kind of psychological evaluation, they no doubt would have been denied the right to own a firearm.

I thought you can do better than that. Like I said - how are you any different from abortion pro-lifers? Why are you being riling up such unnecessary, emotionally-charged misguided agenda? :roll:

talk about double standard....

And it may be determined, since this is not their first brush with the law, that they were in possession of a firearm illegally as it stands.

Nope - reread the article. They are legally licensed to own firearm by federal government, not Texas.

 

[jillio]

Actually yes it does take a training to understand this issue. That's why CCW is a serious responsibility and has stringent requirements.
Perhaps it takes training for you to understand the CCW law as written.
Actually - you need to stop pointing at CCW holders as vigilante. Where did I ever post such language that reeks of vigilantism?

Again, Jiro, this is about the murder of an innocent child. It has absolutely nothing to do with CCW. How dare you use this child's death as a way to promote your personal agenda.

THANKS GOD!!!! Heaven forbids that Muhs obtain one!!!!

They didn't need one to commit murder, now did they? The law already provided them the means.

I do agree with you that Muhs are vigilante however - do not confuse Muhs with CCW holders. This is simply a case of tragedy. Just like house with backyard pool, neighbor with pitbull dog, drunk driver on the road, and many more. It is still statistically insignificant.

Again, CCW has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. You are simply using this child's death as an opportunity to promote your own personal agenda.
I'm sorry but it's a fact. Would you like me to prove you wrong like you were wrong about Ohio CCW law?

You can certainly try. Doesn't mean that you will succeed. You haven't thus far anywhere except in your own mind.

but i'm not packing any. The world is safer because of second guessing due to gun-friendly laws, Jillio. It's a mind game that wins, not number of people packing the heat.

Yeah, the world was an extremely safe place for this child and his family, wasn't it?

And, if your logic holds true, why is it that crime rates continue to escalate?

 

[jillio]

It was impaired during the day? How did you make such psychological evaluation? Did you interview them? Like I said - this is a case of tragedy just as much as driver making human error which resulting in accident where other factors may have contributed to it such as weather, daylight/night time, so on.

Oh, puleeze, Jiro. Are you actually suggesting that a person who posts a sign such as the one in front of their home, or a person who takes it upon themselves to engage in the actions this couple engaged in are actually psychologically well adjusted and logical? If so, I am terribly concerned about you.
And again, to justify, in any way, the incident that resulted in the loss of a child's life in this way is not only insensitive, it is an indication of a lack of humanity.I thought you can do better than that. Like I said - how are you any different from abortion pro-lifers? Why are you being riling up such unnecessary, emotionally-charged misguided agenda? :roll:

talk about double standard.... Reread

Nor does this have anything to do with abortion. Stop bringing in unrelated issues in an attempt to defend your misquided justification of this couples actions.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, the world was an extremely safe place for this child and his family, wasn't it?

Jillio - this is the case of tragedy just like any other tragedy. You are GROSSLY using this child's death for your personal agenda to promote for tighter gun control (or perhaps a complete ban!)

And, if your logic holds true, why is it that crime rates continue to escalate?

depends on where.

 

[jillio]

Jillio - this is the case of tragedy just like any other tragedy. You are GROSSLY using this child's death for your personal agenda to promote for tighter gun control (or perhaps a complete ban!)


depends on where.

I'm not promoting anything. You are the one that brought gun control and CCW into the discussion. You are also the one that labeled 183 childhood deaths from gunfire as "statistically insignificant" and the one who has attempted to offer justification and explanation for a murder.

Where would be the United States of America, Jiro.

 

[Jiro]

Oh, puleeze, Jiro. Are you actually suggesting that a person who posts a sign such as the one in front of their home, or a person who takes it upon themselves to engage in the actions this couple engaged in are actually psychologically well adjusted and logical? If so, I am terribly concerned about you.
And again, to justify, in any way, the incident that resulted in the loss of a child's life in this way is not only insensitive, it is an indication of a lack of humanity.

And where did I ever suggest such thing? You need to stop distorting the situation. Perhaps you are still in mourning so I suggest you to take a moment. Psychologically well-adjusted and logical? Are you Thought Police?

Nor does this have anything to do with abortion. Stop bringing in unrelated issues in an attempt to defend your misquided justification of this couples actions.

I did not say anything about abortion issue but their behavior. Your behavior and attitude are no different from pro-lifers.

defend Muhs' action? Absolutely not.

Here's Texas Law that scares me -

Deadly Force to Protect Property
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

I just shat in my pants when I read that but I understand. I don't live in rural area and I don't live in Texas. There are 50 states in United States with its own cultural & social & geographical & etc. differences. Feel free to pick one that suits your needs. I can tell you that Texas does not suit your and my needs.

 

[PowerON]

Sure, that´s best safe is not visit Texas as a tourist.

Not even visit Fredericksburg, TX? It's famous German town. My mom's favorite place to visit there. Yeah, she is German heritage.

Seriously... it's just people who have none common sense and shot. I look up on news you place the source, the couple look retard to me. Being trespass and the owner just simple shot over the air to warning or to scary them away which is simple thing. Geez...

 

[Jiro]

I'm not promoting anything. You are the one that brought gun control and CCW into the discussion. You are also the one that labeled 183 childhood deaths from gunfire as "statistically insignificant" and the one who has attempted to offer justification and explanation for a murder.

Where would be the United States of America, Jiro.

1. Liebling is the one who first brought in gun control
2. I used CCW as example to correct your misguided agenda and others
3. I'm sorry but to people with logical minds - it does not warrant shocking attention as there are other cases that are in dire need of urgent attentions such as child abuse, pedophile, drug deaths, and many more. Please stay focus.
4. Please kindly point out where in my post where did I ever justify Muhs' action

 

[jillio]

And where did I ever suggest such thing? You need to stop distorting the situation. Perhaps you are still in mourning so I suggest you to take a moment. Psychologically well-adjusted and logical? Are you Thought Police?

When you sarcastically questioned the fact that I said they were psychologically imbalanced you suggested it. So are they are aren't they, Jiro? Does a psychologically well balanced and logically thinking person post the sign they have posted, or shoot into a family on the road without provocation and justification? It doesn't take the "Thought Police" to determine that well balanced and logical persons do not engage is the actions this couple engaged in. Puleeze.

And yes, I am still grieving, and will be for some time. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with my replies here. And for you to suggest such a thing is not only disrespectful to me, it is unfeeling and disrespectful to Byrdie's memory. You really should refrain from taking such cheap shots.

I did not say anything about abortion issue but their behavior. Your behavior and attitude are no different from pro-lifers.

Again, Jiro, this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of abortion. Stop trying to defend your position with fallicious comparisons.defend Muhs' action? Absolutely not.

You have attempted to explain and justify their actions at every turn.

Here's Texas Law that scares me -



I just shat in my pants when I read that but I understand. I don't live in rural area and I don't live in Texas. There are 50 states in United States with its own cultural & social & geographical & etc. differences. Feel free to pick one that suits your needs. I can tell you that Texas does not suit your and my needs.

I suggest you speak for yourself regarding your needs. I will decide what suits mine myself, thank you.

 

[jillio]

Not even visit Fredericksburg, TX? It's famous German town. My mom's favorite place to visit there. Yeah, she is German heritage.

Seriously... it's just people who have none common sense and shot. I look up on news you place the source, the couple look retard to me. Being trespass and the owner just simple shot over the air to warning or to scary them away which is simple thing. Geez...

These people were not trespassing. They were on a public road.