Police Say Teen Shot Over McCain Sign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byrdie714 said:
That as well as it shows the mentality of people that feel the need to restrict other's individual opinions by going onto their property and taking down their signs.....
Click to expand...

True enough. However, in one case it was teenagers, who are known not to make rational decisions, and in the other, it was an adult whom we would hope would be rational enough to understand the first rather than fire a gun to correct the situation.
 
jillio said:
True enough. However, in one case it was teenagers, who are known not to make rational decisions, and in the other, it was an adult whom we would hope would be rational enough to understand the first rather than fire a gun to correct the situation.
Click to expand...

again.... personal responsibility. 17 years old SHOULD be old enough to make this kind of decision.... especially "to steal or not to steal." Don't tell me you want to enact more laws to make them to behave better.

HOWEVER - If I were in the same shoes as old man - I would NOT shoot at this petty hoodlum for stealing my sign. I am somewhat disturbed about this situation even though it's perfectly legal. Maybe he's just a cranky-ass old fart. Maybe the teenager was really a super jerk and provoked him. I think it's most likely the latter. :dunno2:
 
Jiro said:
again.... personal responsibility. 17 years old SHOULD be old enough to make this kind of decision.... especially "to steal or not to steal." Don't tell me you want to enact more laws to make them to behave better.

HOWEVER - If I were in the same shoes as old man - I would NOT shoot at this petty hoodlum for stealing my sign. I am somewhat disturbed about this situation even though it's perfectly legal. Maybe he's just a cranky-ass old fart. Maybe the teenager was really a super jerk and provoked him. I think it's most likely the latter. :dunno2:
Click to expand...

Well, jiro, "should be" and "are" are two different concepts. A 17 year old is a minor, and that designation is not an arbitrary line that determines between juvenile and adult. It is well documented that the frontal lobe does not fully develop until the age of 21. The frontal lobe is responsible for critical decision making. In some males, it is after the age of 21 that complete development of the frontal lobe can be determined. The laws that apply to juveniles and adults are separate based largely on the fact that a juvenile is not capable, biologically, of the same type of thought process an adult is.

And, lets keep in mind, on the "self-defense" argument. That only holds up if the man doing the shooting had cause to believe that his life was being threatened. The teen ager did not have a gun, and was not posing a physical threat to this man. Therefore, choosing to shoot based on these circumstances was over kill, no pun intended. The law sees it that way. There was just a case in Ohio that was decided regarding a teen who was shot and killed while he and 2 friends were stealing a bale of straw from a Halloween display. The man responsibile was found guilty of homicide. Why? Because 3 teenagers stealing a bale of straw is not sufficient justification for responding by shooting them.
 
Gee, This is one thing that should have never happened in the first place.

Yes, Both parties were wrong to do this. Yes, It could have been approached in a different way to solve the problem. Even though, it was legal for the property owner to defend its property, still, I have to wonder why the property owner could have known that the teenager was not actually posing a life-threating situation in result of shooting him up.

To steal one sign is something but to shoot another is something else.
 
jillio said:
Well, jiro, "should be" and "are" are two different concepts. A 17 year old is a minor, and that designation is not an arbitrary line that determines between juvenile and adult. It is well documented that the frontal lobe does not fully develop until the age of 21. The frontal lobe is responsible for critical decision making. In some males, it is after the age of 21 that complete development of the frontal lobe can be determined. The laws that apply to juveniles and adults are separate based largely on the fact that a juvenile is not capable, biologically, of the same type of thought process an adult is.
Click to expand...

I guess we better make even more restrictive laws then... better up the age limit to 21 for everything. I guess the world's laughing at us.

jillio said:
And, lets keep in mind, on the "self-defense" argument. That only holds up if the man doing the shooting had cause to believe that his life was being threatened. The teen ager did not have a gun, and was not posing a physical threat to this man. Therefore, choosing to shoot based on these circumstances was over kill, no pun intended. The law sees it that way. There was just a case in Ohio that was decided regarding a teen who was shot and killed while he and 2 friends were stealing a bale of straw from a Halloween display. The man responsibile was found guilty of homicide. Why? Because 3 teenagers stealing a bale of straw is not sufficient justification for responding by shooting them.
Click to expand...
:roll: and I concur with the jury's verdict.
 
If we limit to 21 for everything, the world is indeed laughing at us because we cant' control our own citizens.
 
Jiro said:
I guess we better make even more restrictive laws then... better up the age limit to 21 for everything. I guess the world's laughing at us.


:roll: and I concur with the jury's verdict.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? This is about an adult who should know better shooting a child over a freakin' political sign. Death is not a penalty for vandalism.
 
jillio said:
What in the world are you talking about? This is about an adult who should know better shooting a child over a freakin' political sign. Death is not a penalty for vandalism.
Click to expand...

Jiro is a bit lost in the land of laws from different country. I mean, who would punish the family and their 5 neighbors for stealing an apple from teh store?
 
Jiro said:
:rifle: sorry but those thieves should know better. 17 years old is responsible enough to know the laws and the consequence of it, especially in a state regarding gun laws as self-defense on one's property. stupid boy. very stupid... He deserves Darwin's Award.
Click to expand...

You don't think it's a little SILLY to shoot someone over a yard sign?

If the teenager died, he'd probably deserve a Darwin award.
 
Also, where does this rabbit hole lead?

Do people start shooting each other over a piece of food? Is that going to happen next?

Give the people their guns but make it clear to them to use them responsibly and that doesn't include shooting clueless teenagers that steal lawn signs. If the teenager tried to attack him with a knife, he'd be justified in shooting the teenager.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Because it happend on an individual's personal property.
Click to expand...

Did he attacked property owner? I don´t see anything that he attack him but come in for McCain sign.

I am not saying that the teenager is right but I don´t shoot him because he come in my property for McCain sign. I would say to him with raise tone... "Get out of my property". Is it not hard or what?

I don´t shot some strangers because they come in my property. :roll:
 
BradB08 said:
You don't think it's a little SILLY to shoot someone over a yard sign?

If the teenager died, he'd probably deserve a Darwin award.
Click to expand...

I mean that if the teen PROVOKED him.... he probably deserve a Darwin award. If he did steal all these signs, chance is he's an ultra-leftist fanatic jerk. You've seen some protest videos of confrontation between protesters and police. That gets pretty ugly especially for ordinary citizen like Grandpa Joe. Maybe the old man got scared. Maybe the old man was trigger-happy cranky-ass fool. :dunno2:

Either way - I wouldn't shoot a thief like that. I'll just wave my shotgun around and yell. Sucks that this happened.
 
Jiro said:
I mean that if the teen PROVOKED him.... he probably deserve a Darwin award. If he did steal all these signs, chance is he's an ultra-leftist fanatic jerk. You've seen some protest videos of confrontation between protesters and police. That gets pretty ugly especially for ordinary citizen like Grandpa Joe. Maybe the old man got scared. Maybe the old man was trigger-happy cranky-ass fool. :dunno2:

Either way - I wouldn't shoot a thief like that. I'll just wave my shotgun around and yell. Sucks that this happened.
Click to expand...

If it is just a kid stealing signs, my armament stays in the closet.
 
Jiro said:
I mean that if the teen PROVOKED him.... he probably deserve a Darwin award. If he did steal all these signs, chance is he's an ultra-leftist fanatic jerk. You've seen some protest videos of confrontation between protesters and police. That gets pretty ugly especially for ordinary citizen like Grandpa Joe. Maybe the old man got scared. Maybe the old man was trigger-happy cranky-ass fool. :dunno2:

Either way - I wouldn't shoot a thief like that. I'll just wave my shotgun around and yell. Sucks that this happened.
Click to expand...

A warning shot would suffice. I think it was just a stupid teenager stealing lawn signs. I've read plenty of stories about people vandalizing or stealing Obama lawn signs as well. We can't really keep track of who steals what or why.

What we all can agree on is that it's childish behavior and if adults do it as well, then shame on them for not showing maturity.

But the bottom line is that the homeowner overreacted by shooting an unarmed teenager.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Did he attacked property owner? I don´t see anything that he attack him but come in for McCain sign.

I am not saying that the teenager is right but I don´t shoot him because he come in my property for McCain sign. I would say to him with raise tone... "Get out of my property". Is it not hard or what?

I don´t shot some strangers because they come in my property. :roll:
Click to expand...

Remember that in this country--we have the right to defend our property, even though I don't agree with what the individuals did in this case.

I think they took it to the extreme.
 
jillio said:
Kind of shows you the mentality of the people who post those signs, though, doesn't it?:shock:
Click to expand...

Both have history in ton of spank by ugly mommie. That's why both behavior are jerk who enjoy eat worm in chocolate pudding. la de la de...
 
BradB08 said:
A warning shot would suffice. I think it was just a stupid teenager stealing lawn signs. I've read plenty of stories about people vandalizing or stealing Obama lawn signs as well. We can't really keep track of who steals what or why.

What we all can agree on is that it's childish behavior and if adults do it as well, then shame on them for not showing maturity.

But the bottom line is that the homeowner overreacted by shooting an unarmed teenager.
Click to expand...

Do we know that the homeowner knew that the teenager wasn't armed? :scratch:
 
Byrdie714 said:
Remember that in this country--we have the right to defend our property, even though I don't agree with what the individuals did in this case.
Click to expand...

This is only true to an extent. I think that if the person trespassing on your property is unarmed and you shoot and kill them, it would constitute manslaughter. There are some states where the law justifies that but personally, I believe it's manslaughter UNLESS the trespasser is armed and they have an intent to hurt or kill you.

I think that if you know them and know that they own weapons and they don't like you or they've threatened your life, you may have enough evidence there to avoid conviction. It all depends and I am not an legal expert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top