# Houston dad shoots and kills teen boy discovered in daughter?s bedroom



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

> Two families are devastated as a Houston father shot and killed a teen boy that he found in his daughter’s bedroom early Thursday morning. According to My Fox Houston on March 13, police officers responded to a call and found the 17-year-old boy dead from gunshot wounds caused by the owner of the house.
> 
> It all started when the father was told by one of his other children that they heard someone up in his 16-year-old daughter’s bedroom. He went to check it out and found the boy in bed with the girl. *He had a gun in his hand at the time and asked the teenager to identify himself. Neither of the kids seemed to cooperate as his daughter chose to say that she had no idea who the boy was.*
> 
> ...







> A Houston-area father fatally shot a 17-year-old boy who was inside his teen daughter's bedroom early Thursday morning, MyFoxHouston.com reported.
> 
> The father, who was not identified, was notified by one of his children that there was someone in his 16-year-old daughter's room, the report said. He reportedly found his daughter in bed with the teen.
> 
> ...





I hope the guilt kills her.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Mar 13, 2014)

dumbass        daughter


----------



## Bioness (Mar 13, 2014)

Arrest the father, this is murder.

The daughter was stupid, but the father was even dumber.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

AND THAT'S WHY CHILDREN, YOU DON'T GIVE A GUN TO EVERY MOTHERFUCKING PERSON IN THE WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING COUNTRY . Seriously, US just needs to be more strict about gun-wielding .

As I said basically a week ago:



Mr. Black Leg said:


> US just needs to be more consistent about taking people's guns . I mean, we monthly see reports that " An old man killed somebody because he was not using his glasses and thought that it was an intruder so he had a militar level weapon in his home and shot the guy dead, when it actually was his neighbor asking for some milk " .


----------



## Enclave (Mar 13, 2014)

Look, if the kid had a gun none of this would have happened guys.  He would have been able to defend himself.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Bioness said:


> Arrest the father, this is murder.
> 
> The daughter was stupid, but the father was even dumber.



The father was not at fault.

He asked his daughter who the man was. She denied knowing who he was.

He assumes he might be a predator/creep/rapist/robber/whatever. Sees him move and reach for something after telling him not to and shoots him as a result.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Mar 13, 2014)

Why lie to your father about a guy under your bed and say you don't know him when he has a gun in his hands... Seems to me she panicked, made up a lie and now the kid has lost his life.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

Enclave said:


> Look, if the kid had a gun none of this would have happened guys.  He would have been able to defend himself.



You're sarcasming, right ? In case not the result would be two dead . And more crying .


----------



## Fiona (Mar 13, 2014)

This ladies and gentleman is why idiots dont need guns and why stricter gun laws need to be in place.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 13, 2014)

If you see a stranger in your daughters room and she claims she doesn't know neither him nor how he got here. Then said stranger suddenly tries to grab something after being warned not to move, I can understand the father acting in the moment.

Guns just make it so easy to kill someone, that it could have happened before he even had a chance to think things through.

Pity for the kid, his girlfriend is horrible. Even if he survived, he could have been labeled as a sex offender, because of her.


----------



## Tapion (Mar 13, 2014)

Send the father to jail murder is still murder.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> You're sarcasming, right ? In case not the result would be two dead . And more crying .



Sarcasming is not a verb. I don't think that's even a word. He was being sarcastic and that's not hard to tell.

Also this fuck up as many of you pointed goes to the daughter. She was most likely afraid to admitting she was having sex in the room. This is also the reason why I'm an advocate for not trialing teens as adults.  They are still more reliable to make stupid decisions which in this case lead to the teen's death.




Fiona said:


> This ladies and gentleman is why idiots dont need guns and why stricter gun laws need to be in place.



Lol Fiona... stricter gun laws would not have prevented this from happening.  The man walked into a room and found a guy in bed with his daughter whom he was lied to. How would have stricter gun laws prevented this?


----------



## Thunder (Mar 13, 2014)

The dumbass daughter should've just told the truth. Did she not know her father kept a gun in house? What a mess.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> This ladies and gentleman is why idiots dont need guns and why stricter gun laws need to be in place.





Mr. Black Leg said:


> AND THAT'S WHY CHILDREN, YOU DON'T GIVE A GUN TO EVERY MOTHERFUCKING PERSON IN THE WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING COUNTRY . Seriously, US just needs to be more strict about gun-wielding .
> 
> As I said basically a week ago:



I knew you fucks would be in on this one saying dumb shit. Again the DAUGTHER LIED AND SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW HIM. The dad thought he was protecting her from most likely a rapist or some shit. If the stupid bitch wasn't trying to suck the kids dick in her room none of this would of happened.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

The moment her dad walked in with a gun, what did she think he would do with it? Spank him with it?

Unfortunate, but the father isn't at fault. He asked to his daughter and the boy to identify himself, but he didn't. Instead he moved when asked not to.

Of course it could have been a lie, but I'm going to work with what i have so far until otherwise.


----------



## Fiona (Mar 13, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I knew you fucks would be in on this one saying dumb shit. Again the DAUGTHER LIED AND SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW HIM. The dad thought he was protecting her from most likely a rapist or some shit. If the stupid bitch wasn't trying to suck the kids dick in her room none of this would of happened.



And I knew that you would be in here victim blaming. 

The boy did nothing wrong. The girl lied and her father over-reacted and now a boy is dead.

The father shot and killed a kid. 

That is murder, but sadly since this is Texas he is going to get a medal and lifetime supply of BBQ and truck magazines for his trouble.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> And I knew that you would be in here victim blaming.
> 
> The boy did nothing wrong. The girl lied and her father over-reacted and now a boy is dead.
> 
> ...



Can you explain to me how this is murder?


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Sarcasming is not a verb. I don't think that's even a word. He was being sarcastic and that's not hard to tell.
> 
> Also this fuck up as many of you pointed goes to the daughter. She was most likely afraid to admitting she was having sex in the room. This is also the reason why I'm an advocate for not trialing teens as adults.  They are still more reliable to make stupid decisions which in this case lead to the teen's death.



I know it's not a word . It was a joke . And I answered in the off chance of he being serious about the coment, because you know, this is internet, there are people who actually defend things like " corrective rape"(Yes I already saw this) .



Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I knew you fucks would be in on this one saying dumb shit. Again the DAUGTHER LIED AND SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW HIM. The dad thought he was protecting her from most likely a rapist or some shit. If the stupid bitch wasn't trying to suck the kids dick in her room none of this would of happened.



There's someone in her bedroom because she let in . If she gave consent for the person in(She probably helped him enter the house in ninja mode) then the house is safe from people entering without someone's inside help . If he didn't have any guns, it would be dat awkward moment when your girlfriend's father catches you and your gf having sex that you would tell someone in a bar for the next 40 years of your life . But guess what ? He's not going to get the chance of telling this fun story because the guy had a gun .


----------



## Fiona (Mar 13, 2014)

Moe said:


> Can you explain to me how this is murder?



Um....how is it not? 

An unarmed boy is brought into the house by a willing girl who then lies to her father about who he is and the father shoots and kills said unarmed boy. 

You explain to me how that isnt murder...


----------



## ExoSkel (Mar 13, 2014)

This is Texas. The father won't be trialed for murder as his defense is basically shooting a stranger in his daughter's bedroom, teenager or not. 

So many Texans got away from getting imprisoned from incidents like these by pleading as self-defense. Plus, this happened in his own home. This is a case shut self-defense trial in the state of Texas, unless prosecutors are willing to go after the father further, which is rare.

The place is no different from Florida.


----------



## Grimsley (Mar 13, 2014)

this is why guns should be banned. the father's action was extreme, what a fucking mess.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> And I knew that you would be in here victim blaming.
> 
> The boy did nothing wrong. The girl lied and her father over-reacted and now a boy is dead.
> 
> ...



This post contains about everything I wanted to say . I can't give you rep for that . My I give you my imaginary hug and high five . Especially the bolded .


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Um....how is it not?
> 
> An unarmed boy is brought into the house by a willing girl who then lies to her father about who he is and the father shoots and kills said unarmed boy.
> 
> You explain to me how that isnt murder...



Because when he questioned the boy he got no reply and then the daughter lied and said she did not know who he was. As a parent, if you see your daughter in bed with a man she claims she does not know, as a parent your first instinct show be to protect your family from an intruder.  He tried asking the boy for info while telling not him to cooperate. The boy simply refused.


----------



## Fiona (Mar 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Because when he questioned the boy he got no reply and then the daughter lied and said she did not know who he was. As a parent, if you see your daughter in bed with a man she claims she does not know, as a parent your first instinct show be to protect your family from an intruder.  He tried asking the boy for info while telling not him to cooperate. The boy simply refused.



So the logical reaction is to immediately shoot the unarmed person to death? 

You people can post all day trying to defend the father, but the simple truth is the father over-reacted and you all know it. 

You are just so god damn attached to arguing and debating that you just wont admit it. 

It was murder and you all know it. Unlike you though I will not be spending the next 4 hours of my life in this thread arguing about something that I already know is true just because a few idiots try and say otherwise. 

Enjoy your day guys.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Because when he questioned the boy he got no reply and then the daughter lied and said she did not know who he was. As a parent, if you see your daughter in bed with a man she claims she does not know, as a parent your first instinct show be to protect your family from an intruder.  He tried asking the boy for info while telling not him to cooperate. *The boy simply refused.*



The boy simply FREAKED . Like every other teenager would do . Some scream, some pass out, some just simply can't say a word . Do not try to put the blame on a guy who was shot dead because he panicked and couldn't say a word .


----------



## ExoSkel (Mar 13, 2014)

Of course, that's assuming if the father is telling the truth. The boy could've simply answered the girl's father for all we know and still shot the kid. We won't know the truth.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Um....how is it not?
> 
> An unarmed boy is brought into the house by a willing girl who then lies to her father about who he is and the father shoots and kills said unarmed boy.
> 
> You explain to me how that isnt murder...



The blue part is a non factor, since the red part clearly shows he had reason to believe he was an unwanted intruder.

You also missed the part where he suddenly reached for an unknown item after the father warned him not to move.

These two points are enough to exonerate the father from culpability, therefore his action unquestionably does not fall under the category of murder. He also lacks the necessary intent for it to be a murder.

 In fact it points to a case of self defense, because he had enough reason to assume that the individual was a threat. 

Welcome to the rule of law, where evidence and proof  trumps over opinions


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> And I knew that you would be in here victim blaming.
> 
> The boy did nothing wrong. The girl lied and her father over-reacted and now a boy is dead.
> 
> ...



No the boy didn't but he also shouldn't have made a move with a angry dad in the room ready to snap his neck in the first place. The girl said she didn't know him and you would listen to your daughter rather then some rando in your girl's room. He is not responsible for this "murder". I can ask my criminal law teacher on Monday about this story and figure out a legal term for you and reason why he is not.



Mr. Black Leg said:


> There's someone in her bedroom because she let in . If she gave consent for the person in(She probably helped him enter the house in ninja mode) then the house is safe from people entering without someone's inside help . If he didn't have any guns, it would be dat awkward moment when your girlfriend's father catches you and your gf having sex that you would tell someone in a bar for the next 40 years of your life . But guess what ? He's not going to get the chance of telling this fun story because the guy had a gun .



You come into your girl's room, you haven't heard anyone enter the house, you would think right away, especially if your daughter is saying, Dad I don't know this guy. "This guy snuck into my home and is trying to do something to my daughter." Tell me you wouldn't think that? The seer logic by some of you people is retarded. 

Yes a kid is dead. Its terrible but he should've have snuck into a girl's bedroom to do God knows what. This is not the Dad's fault in the slightest. He was defending his home. Its not like the girl and boy where at a Starbucks and the Dad rolled up in his truck and whipped out his gun and shot him while they where out.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Mar 13, 2014)

Stupid girl. Why lie, he found you in bed with him! Your dad is not a child, he knows what sex is. Just admit he's your bf instead of making him out to be a rapist or something! You'd probably get an earful and whatnot, but better than this. What a dumbass! Poor boy lost his life because of her stupidity, now I hope she's haunted for life.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> So the logical reaction is to immediately shoot the unarmed person to death?
> 
> You people can post all day trying to defend the father, but the simple truth is the father over-reacted and you all know it.
> 
> ...



i laugh

i laugh hard HARD

ur the best Fiona

get rekt HB


----------



## Fiona (Mar 13, 2014)

Moe said:


> i laugh
> 
> i laugh hard HARD
> 
> ...



Are you 12? 

Because you sound and act like you are 12.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> So the logical reaction is to immediately shoot the unarmed person to death?
> 
> You people can post all day trying to defend the father, but the simple truth is the father over-reacted and you all know it.
> 
> ...



 Hey thanks. You enjoy your day too.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Are you 12?
> 
> Because you sound and act like you are 12.



Why exactly are you back? I thought you were better than this?


----------



## Orochimaru (Mar 13, 2014)

Fair enough. Any word on race or ethnicity?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

I just like how some people in here are taking this supposed higher moral ground, implying that they _wouldn't_ shoot an unknown and potentially dangerous person in their household, if they were given the option to.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Orochimaru said:


> Fair enough. Any word on race or ethnicity?



I really don't think that even plays a part. The girl lied made the dad think the situation was something else bottom line.

It might of been different if the girl was white and boy was black and the girl said I love him and the dad shot him after that. Other then that I don't think race plays a part.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

You wouldn't shoot if you didn't have a gun .

Oh just for you know that's why there is a court : To check the facts . That's why you don't get robbed and see a random black person in the street, scream " It was him " to a police officer and he gets in jail . 

The dad is a killer and committed a Homicide at the very least . I'm not saying he shouldn't shoot in this situation, he should, but that does not absent him from being the guy with a gun who shots, the "fault" of the guy being dead is 50/50 with the girl and the dad, but the guy who murdered him is the dad, and he should get the penalty for " homicide " while the girl will at most will suffer from the charge of caluny, this is it, if she even get charged with something .


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Orochimaru said:


> Fair enough. Any word on race or ethnicity?



He was of the human race but not sure his skin color and that most likely won't be released along with any of his other info like hair color or shoe size and penis girth until the day of a trial since he was a minor. And by minor I don't mean black or Hispanic.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I just like how some people in here are taking this supposed higher moral ground, implying that they _wouldn't_ shoot an unknown and potentially dangerous person in their household, if they were given the option to.



Who is going to this higher moral ground? I would shoot a unknown and potentially dangerous person in my home if I had the chance as well. Rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> You wouldn't shoot if you didn't have a gun .



"if they were given the option to".


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> It was murder and you all know it. Unlike you though I will not be spending the next 4 hours of my life in this thread arguing about something that I already know is true just because a few idiots try and say otherwise.
> 
> Enjoy your day guys.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I just like how people in here are taking this supposed higher moral ground, implying that they _wouldn't_ shoot an unknown and potentially dangerous person in their household, if they were given the option to.



No no no, it goes deeper. They're saying they wouldn't shoot an unknown intruder in their daughter's room. Even if he made a move for a weapon you still shouldn't shoot them.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Mar 13, 2014)

i'll wait until i know what the kid was reaching for. for all we know if could have been a cell phone that looked like a gun with the tint of the bedroom light. You can't take any chances in that kind of situation.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

klad said:


> No no no, it goes deeper. They're saying they wouldn't shoot an unknown intruder in their daughter's room. Even if he made a move for a weapon you still shouldn't shoot them.



Must...not...rep...


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

I swear, some of these people arguing for stricter gun laws are similar to some of those who are pro-marijuana: we know you just want to push your agenda, so why the hell are you trying to make it appear like you have some higher moral stance than the rest of us?

For clarification on the comparison, I'm mainly referring to the younger age group of pro-marijuana people: replacement for paper (or whatever the fuck), medical purpose, etc. 

pssht. I know you just wanna get high.


----------



## Easley (Mar 13, 2014)

I think the daughter is to blame. 

Her dad walks in with a gun and she lies about knowing the boy? That's going to end well. For all I know he could be trigger happy, but it seems like genuine concern for his daughter.

However, I doubt the boy "reached for something" with a gun pointed at him. Firing in self-defense, or protecting your family, sounds much better than killing someone in your daughter's bed due to a misunderstanding.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I swear, some of these people arguing for stricter gun laws are similar to some of those who are pro-marijuana: we know you just want to push your agenda, so why the hell are you trying to make it appear like you have some higher moral stance than the rest of us?
> 
> For clarification on the comparison, I'm mainly referring to the younger age group of pro-marijuana people: replacement for paper (or whatever the fuck), medical purpose, etc.
> 
> *pssht. I know you just wanna get high.*



That's in case for marijuana, what about the case for stricter gun laws ? " pssht I know you just don't wanna get shot " ?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Easley said:


> I think the daughter is to blame.
> 
> Her dad walks in with a gun and she lies about knowing the boy? That's going to end well. For all I know he could be trigger happy, but it seems like genuine concern for his daughter.
> 
> However, I doubt the boy "reached for something" with a gun pointed at him. Firing in self-defense, or protecting your family, sounds much better than killing someone in your daughter's bed due to a misunderstanding.



Let's hope they do find evidence to refute that claim if the father did indeed make that part up.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

I actually think the guy opens the door, sees the scene and kills the guy without asking . Not saying he didn't think it was a rapist, he probably did, but he killed without asking, that looks more like Texas' way of life and with things that normally occur .


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> That's in case for marijuana, what about the case for stricter gun laws ? " pssht I know you just don't wanna get shot " ?



well actually, it's more:

"pssht. I know you just wanna keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history (or whatever-the-fuck)."

Point is, it's really quite counter-productive to your cause when you're effectively telling others that you're better than them for Reason "X", in regards to Agenda "A".

Vegans being another one of these groups


----------



## Neurological (Mar 13, 2014)

I don't think he needed a gun to subdue a teenage boy, this could've all gone down without anyone dying and without a need of being trigger happy. It's a strange situation though, why keep up a lie after you've been caught in the act?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Neurological said:


> I don't think he needed a gun to subdue a teenage boy, this could've all gone down without anyone dying and without a need of being trigger happy. It's a strange situation though, why keep up a lie after you've been caught in the act?



The girl lied not the boy.


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Are you 12?
> 
> Because you sound and act like you are 12.



are you 12?

"★IchiRuki★" made me wonder


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> well actually, it's more:
> 
> "pssht. I know you just wanna keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history (or whatever-the-fuck)."
> 
> ...



Nah, I just don't want a gun pointed at me everytime I get off my bed and go pee, and when I'm back there's my mother thinking that it was a intruder because she heard some noises . I didn't even know that there was this reason for wanting more strict gun law .

And I want to see you trying to argue two stereotypes you had and none of them is in me, as I didn't say in any moment I'm better than you or anyone here in this thread, or any thread for that matter, because of X .


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> as I didn't say in any moment I'm better than you or anyone here in this thread, or any thread for that matter, because of X .



I never said you did.  

Don't be taking what I said personally, because it was never directed _at_ you.


----------



## Wilykat (Mar 13, 2014)

I think Dad will get off easy because he was lied to when he asked who the boy was.  Mystery unknown stranger in your teen-aged daughter's room sounds like the stranger might have been trying to rape her or something.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Mar 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Must...not...rep...



It's okay, just let whatever it is you need to flow, flow through you.
And don't forget manly tears


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Nah, I just don't want a gun pointed at me everytime I get off my bed and go pee, and when I'm back there's my mother thinking that it was a intruder because she heard some noises . I didn't even know that there was this reason for wanting more strict gun law .
> 
> And I want to see you trying to argue two stereotypes you had and none of them is in me, as I didn't say in any moment I'm better than you or anyone here in this thread, or any thread for that matter, because of X .



Depends?

Where you trying to pee in someone elses house?
Did the individual tell you to identify yourself?
Did the individual tell you not to move?
Did you fail to identify yourself and moved while ordered not to?
Did it look like you were reaching for something?

If you answered yes, yes, yes, yes, anddd yes, well then be quiet and take this gunshot like a man.

He could have been lying, but we obviously cannot work with just that.


----------



## Drums (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> well actually, it's more:
> 
> "pssht. I know you just wanna keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history (or whatever-the-fuck)."
> 
> ...



and why would that be a bad thing?  do you feel comfortable knowing people with criminal past have guns in their posession or are you so brave that you're above that?

also i dont see how people say they're better than others just because they dont agree with you and  with the ample use of guns by just anyone.


what kind of shitty argument is that? it's like you're trying desperately to turn your inferiority complexes into a valid point.

shutup with this candy at last. blah blah blah you think you're better than us blah blah blah. well i got news for you, idiot.

you're actually a pretty shitty person if all that bothers you in the argument about guns is people supposdly being on a moral pedestal and not that more people may _lose_ their lives tomorrow because of irresponsible gun use and lenient gun laws.

i know it's an unlikely probability to you that some people may actually care about human lives and instead you think it as more probable that they only care about passing their own agenda, whatever that means, as if they're children playing in a tag of war and winning the game is the sole and only motivator of their arguements.


which makes up for a pretty shitty person as said before if you ask me and as such there's no need for anyone to step up on a moral pedestal to stand above you when you're already -3000 metres below base


so put that in your pipe and smoke it 'cause you're counterproductive to your own points.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Mar 13, 2014)

Teenage game 101: If you're balls deep in a girl at her house be aware of your surroundings. Be prepared to jump out the window, if you know others are home then lock the door or move furniture to block it. 

Player made a mistake and it cost him his life, the girl is a bitch to lying to daddy and the dad shouldn't of thought of her as "his little princess"


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Nah, I just don't want a gun pointed at me everytime I get off my bed and go pee, and when I'm back there's my mother thinking that it was a intruder because she heard some noises . I didn't even know that there was this reason for wanting more strict gun law .
> 
> And I want to see you trying to argue two stereotypes you had and none of them is in me, as I didn't say in any moment I'm better than you or anyone here in this thread, or any thread for that matter, because of X .



Thread is not a thread until the shitty analogies come out.


----------



## Bear Walken (Mar 13, 2014)

ballsy, stupid daughter. how the fuck you gonna fuck someone with your parents home? then not cough up to it when your dumb ass gets caught. 

dad will get off. you never know with Texas.

that'll be the last time she'll ever lie to her dad.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

StrawHeart said:


> -snip-



stopped reading after the first two because my point clearly went over your head, and I was getting the feeling it was mostly cleverly disguised _ad hominem_.


----------



## SLB (Mar 13, 2014)

I'm putting this one on the daughter.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 13, 2014)

The situation is difficult for me to comment on because there are so many people giving account of what happened whom I don't trust. If what happened is the truth then the guy has a legitimate claim of self-defence. However, I cannot shake the suspicion that he shot the kid down upon entering the room, and that his daughter is lying out of fear or to protect him. 

That being said, if he is telling the truth and if is successful in a claim for self-defence, he still behaved like an ass hat. Most people should have enough common sense to act with a degree of scepticism if a teenage boy is in the room with their teenage daughter. In the heat of the moment I would find it more believable that my daughter sneaked him in the house. Some creep breaking into the house and raping her is somewhat outlandish.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 13, 2014)

Moe said:


> The father was not at fault.
> 
> He asked his daughter who the man was. She denied knowing who he was.
> 
> He assumes he might be a predator/creep/rapist/robber/whatever. Sees him move and reach for something after telling him not to and shoots him as a result.





ClandestineSchemer said:


> If you see a stranger in your daughters room and she claims she doesn't know neither him nor how he got here. Then said stranger suddenly tries to grab something after being warned not to move, I can understand the father acting in the moment.





Moe said:


> The moment her dad walked in with a gun, what did she think he would do with it? Spank him with it?
> 
> Unfortunate, but the father isn't at fault. He asked to his daughter and the boy to identify himself, but he didn't. Instead he moved when asked not to.



^I agree with all this.



Fiona said:


> The boy did nothing wrong. The girl lied and her father over-reacted and now a boy is dead.
> 
> The father shot and killed a kid.
> 
> That is murder,



The boy was guilty of trespassing (if not outright home invasion/intrusion), and may have been a rapist for all the dad knew. The outcome is unfortunate, but the kid simply shouldn't have been there in the first place--let alone shagging the guy's daughter--without the homeowner's awareness. The dad had no idea who the kid was and evidently didn't allow him into the house because he didn't know the kid was there. If the story turns out to be accurate and the kid really did make a move when the dad--pointing a gun at him--expressly warned not to, then the dad really can't be faulted for taking action with lethal force, under these circumstances.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> *You wouldn't shoot if you didn't have a gun* .
> 
> Oh just for you know that's why there is a court : To check the facts . That's why you don't get robbed and see a random black person in the street, scream " It was him " to a police officer and he gets in jail .
> 
> The dad is a killer and committed a Homicide at the very least . I'm not saying he shouldn't shoot in this situation, he should, but that does not absent him from being the guy with a gun who shots, the "fault" of the guy being dead is 50/50 with the girl and the dad, but the guy who murdered him is the dad, and he should get the penalty for " homicide " while the girl will at most will suffer from the charge of caluny, this is it, if she even get charged with something .



Correct. You would grab whatever other item you had at your disposal to decrease the potential threat within the home. Be it a knife, a baseball bat, a stick, the lamp from the hallway.. It wouldn't change much. 



In all honesty, if an older teenager is found in the room of a 13 year old and the daughter (the 13 year old) says she doesn't know who the much older male is, then there is reason to react from a protective standpoint. 

The father said "don't move," which means a safer course of action was to be taken. Be it more investigation on wtf is going on, or simply calling the police, but as soon as the unidentified person who was not allowed into the house by the parent (at that point a current threat given the understanding of the Father's point of view) lunges or moves for anything, it is time to eliminate that said threat. 

Is it a bad circumstance?  Yes. Is the boy an idiot? Yes. Is the daughter an idiot? yes. 

Is the father an idiot? No. A man was found in his very young teen daughters bed and she said she didn't know who he is. The man was told to not move, then grabbed/reached for something, and it that situation it could easily have been a life threatening choice not to react (Provided the teen male and daughter didn't lie.)

In this case it all adds up to stupidity. "Who is this? Do you know him" "no".. That is immediate obligation from the parent to do something. It looks like a seriously dangerous situation.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Mar 13, 2014)

You can say whatever you want, the father is still a bad parent and not very good at taking decisions under pressure. It's like he didn't know his daughter at all and couldn't recognize when she's lying (given her pitiful attempt at lying she was either not very good at lying anyways or she knew her dad would fall for it either way, in which case she should've also known the consequences of her lie), I mean it was a _teenager_ the odds weren't that he was a rapist (of course, never discarded).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if part of that story was made up by the father to make himself look more credible.

Why not simply calling the police? You can point the gun at the boy and freeze him in a corner until officers arrive if you want but, why killing him?

Captain Hindsight out.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 13, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> You can say whatever you want, the father is still a bad parent and not very good at taking decisions under pressure. It's like he didn't know his daughter at all and couldn't recognize when she's lying (given her pitiful attempt at lying she was either not very good at lying anyways or she knew her dad would fall for it either way, in which case she should've also known the consequences of her lie), I mean it was a _teenager_ the odds weren't that he was a rapist (of course, never discarded).
> It wouldn't surprise me at all if part of that story was made up by the father to make himself look more credible.
> 
> Why not simply calling the police? You can point the gun at the boy and freeze him in a corner until officers arrive if you want but, why killing him?
> ...



There is no evidence on time line at this moment to know if he had time or not to call the police. 

You cannot always blame terrible actions from children on the parent. The "best" parents in the world can raise a fuck up.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

Just a thought, humor me, people:

Same scenario, but instead of the shooter being the girl's father, it was the girl's mother. 

Aaaaaaand....Go.


----------



## deathgod (Mar 13, 2014)

Man, daddy overreacted big time. He just couldn't accept the fact that his princess daughter wasn't the angel he thought she was. Cmon, now. If I had a teenage daughter and found her in bed with a teenage boy, I'd beat the boys ass, but I wouldn't shoot him. Nor would I be so naive as to believe my daughter when she said she didn't know the dude in that situation. 

People saying the boy shouldn't have reached. Well, guy was scared. He could have been reaching for his draws to get the fuck out of there, or maybe reaching for his phone to show the dad a pic of him and the girl together. If I was in that situation I probably would have tried to get the fuck up out of there are well.

Most likely dad let his anger get the best of him and the end result was tragic.


----------



## Bear Walken (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Just a thought, humor me, people:
> 
> Same scenario, but instead of the shooter being the girl's father, it was the girl's mother.
> 
> Aaaaaaand....Go.



ballsy, stupid daughter. how the fuck you gonna fuck someone with your parents home? then not cough up to it when your dumb ass gets caught. 

mom will get off. you never know with Texas.

that'll be the last time she'll ever lie to her mom.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> You can say whatever you want, the father is still a bad parent and not very good at taking decisions under pressure.



How would you react if you asked your daughter who is this stranger lying in bed with her and she says, "I don't know?" Also he didn't shoot until after he told the kid to sit still and he kept reaching for something. 






> It's like he didn't know his daughter at all and couldn't recognize when she's lying (given her pitiful attempt at lying she was either not very good at lying anyways or she knew her dad would fall for it either way, in which case she should've also known the consequences of her lie), I mean it was a _teenager_ the odds weren't that he was a rapist (of course, never discarded).



Depends on how many times his daughter has done this. That's a severe lie.




> It wouldn't surprise me at all if part of that story was made up by the father to make himself look more credible.



Both are admitting the same story. Also children don't make for good lairs when you ask them to lie for you. they tend to change the story every time.



> Why not simply calling the police? You can point the gun at the boy and freeze him in a corner until officers arrive if you want but, why killing him?
> 
> Captain Hindsight out.



There was a gun pointed at him when he told him to stop moving. i doubt saying I'm going to call the police would have made him sit his ass still.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Just a thought, humor me, people:
> 
> Same scenario, but instead of the shooter being the girl's father, it was the girl's mother.
> 
> Aaaaaaand....Go.



She'd probably yell for the father to get his gun.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Or would have had a three some.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Sarcasming is not a verb. I don't think that's even a word. He was being sarcastic and that's not hard to tell.
> 
> Also this fuck up as many of you pointed goes to the daughter. She was most likely afraid to admitting she was having sex in the room. This is also the reason why I'm an advocate for not trialing teens as adults.  They are still more reliable to make stupid decisions which in this case lead to the teen's death.
> \



You're sarcasming right now aren't you?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> You're sarcasming *right now* aren't you?



_ Today, 05:19 PM _


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Mar 13, 2014)

What a dumbass daugther. Guy should have idenitified himself.  Heck I'd definately consider the option of shooting an unknown stranger in my house if I had the option too.

The world is quite dangerous and tough. Bullshit like trying to subdue an invader who's with your loved ones with the the least amount of force is always easy to say afterwards. Heck I'd wonder how many people wouldn't instantly attempt to brutally beat the living shit out of  an stranger in thier house by using any means nessary if the opurtunity arises.

People aren't some bullshit machines that will first try to rationalise the situation beforehand in situations like these?


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 13, 2014)

I guess it would be very easy for us to fault the father for immediately shooting the kid rather than just tell him to get the fuck out of his house. Truth is, in a situation like that, we can easily say "If I were in that situation, I'd exercise restraint and do X", its different to actually live up to those words.

Now ideally, the father could have just fired a warning shot and that would have been the end of it (not sure if I believe the "I thought he was reaching" excuse), but its also on the daughter for not telling her dad the truth which could have diffused the situation before it got out of hand. Really, no one in this scenario is entirely blameless.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Mar 13, 2014)

Surprised a lot of people are calling for the father's blood on this. 

I can completely understand the father's reaction if he found complete stranger in his daughter's room and she claimed she didn't know who he was. At that point, he'd have every reason to assume the guy was a dangerous creep. It's the kid's fault for making a sudden move to reach for something after he was told not to move.


----------



## Plague (Mar 13, 2014)

Yeah, this is going to be on her conscience for the rest of her life.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 13, 2014)

Colonel Awesome said:


> Surprised a lot of people are calling for the father's blood on this.
> 
> I can completely understand the father's reaction if he found complete stranger in his daughter's room and she claimed she didn't know who he was. At that point, he'd have every reason to assume the guy was a dangerous creep. It's the kid's fault for making a sudden move to reach for something after he was told not to move.



Really? If I walked into my daughters room brandishing a gun, I would expect her to react out of self preservation. In other words I would expect to say what wouldn't get my anger focused on her. Next time children break an object in your home, walk in with a meat cleaver and ask which one is responsible.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 13, 2014)

Okay how about this. If the daughter were to wake up or even be aware of the strangers presence, shouldn't there have been a strong reaction from the daughter like oh I don't know, a scream? Running to her father's side? Anything other than saying "she doesn't him" and then adding that they "were not in bed together". Like what kind of reaction is that to your father brandishing a gun at your boyfriend/fuck buddy/one night stand/whatever.

This story to me screams bullshit on the father's side. He shot because he was overzealous and paranoid, he reached the worse conclusion and brashly acted on it. Send his ass to jail.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 13, 2014)

Colonel Awesome said:


> Surprised a lot of people are calling for the father's blood on this.
> 
> I can completely understand the father's reaction if he found complete stranger in his daughter's room and she claimed she didn't know who he was. At that point, he'd have every reason to assume the guy was a dangerous creep. It's the kid's fault for making a sudden move to reach for something after he was told not to move.


The one issue is that at this point, all we have is the father's word that the kid moved despite being ordered not to. If they ever take this to a trial we may know more, and unlike Zimmerman, there is a witness on the scene that can verify or debunk his claim.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 13, 2014)

A witness who is his daughter, not some random bystander.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Mar 13, 2014)

Wolfgang Grimmer said:


> dumbass        daughter



Yeah pretty much. The father also comes off as a real dumbass if he believed her story, him pulling the trigger because he mistook the guy as having a gun is sadly too common a cause of people being shot. The boy is an idiot too for moving despite a guy with a gun telling him not to move.

2 dumbasses and one potential dumbass with a gun add upto this.The father to some extent I can justify, he walked in on his daughter having sex with a guy he did'nt know who was reaching for something despite a warning.


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

I dont trust the story to be honest.

There is no way the Dad would have came in there with the gun and the kids would have reacted the way that is claimed.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 13, 2014)

Well from a purely legal standpoint, the father should be getting off with no charges if what he claims is true. An unknown person was in the room, his daughter claimed she didn't know him, he lunged for something, and he shot. That's plenty of support for a self-defense claim. His daughter was a huge idiot for lying about the boy's identity, and the boy was also dumb for trying to run away in the presence of a guy with a gun. At the same time though, it's important to consider that they're just teenagers. It's obvious that the two teens panicked and just did whatever came to their mind without thinking. Teens don't act rational at that age, nor in that situation.

At the same time though, I do find myself frustrated at the gun-crazy culture we live in. I honestly think the father is a huge idiot for seeing a boy in his daughter's room and immediately drawing a gun on him. I mean cmon, the "teenage girl secretly brings her boyfriend over so daddy won't notice" thing is a pretty common scenario amongst kids, and they rarely end with a person getting shot. Yes, the daughter lied, but that's the thing about guns: they escalate the situation and put everyone into HYPER-PANIC mode. Hormonal teenage girls generally don't think straight even in normal situations, let alone situations that involve getting caught red-handed by a gun-wielding father.

This is the main thing that bothers me about a lot of gun owners. Guns are treated as a first resort rather than a last resort, and even the slightest wrong move is treated as justification to blow a human being's head off. If the father didn't have a gun, the worst thing that could have happened is the boyfriend leaving with a black eye, but instead he leaves in a body bag. Tragic and unnecessary.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

navy said:


> I dont trust the story to be honest.
> 
> There is no way the Dad would have came in there with the gun and the kids would have reacted the way that is claimed.



The only part I find possibly unbelievable is the father's claim that the kid reached for something. Everything else I can believe.

The daughter denies knowing the boy.
The boy freezes up in fear and shock of the girl throwing him to the curb.
The father shoots anyway.

Until new evidence comes to light, I'mma stick with the father on this.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 13, 2014)

I'm failing to see how the father is at fault here based on the known information. The daughter is at fault.
If what the father believed the situation was, was true, that being that there was a rapist in his daughter's room and was reaching for a weapon, Yeah, I'd shoot him too.


----------



## Tyrannos (Mar 13, 2014)

Plague said:


> Yeah, this is going to be on her conscience for the rest of her life.



More than that.  If she really did lie, I won't be surprised the boy's parents suing for wrongful death.



But like others said, the father isn't to blame.   From what we know of the story, he confronted the intruder and told him not to move.   Even law enforcement would've reacted the same way as the father.  If you move when told not to, and appears to be reaching for an object, you are justified using lethal force for self-defense.


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

I highly doubt the daughter would deny knowing the boy if the father had a gun in his hand. Unless she was trying to get him killed. 

It's one thing to say you dont know someone. It's another to say that while your trigger happy dad pulls in with gun in hand 

The Dad isnt at fault if they are telling the truth. I just dont trust the family.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 13, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Just a thought, humor me, people:
> 
> Same scenario, but instead of the shooter being the girl's father, it was the girl's mother.
> 
> Aaaaaaand....Go.



"The mother was too bossy." 



Kagekatsu said:


> Now ideally, the father could have just fired a warning shot and that would have been the end of it



No, that's a terrible idea.

_Never_ discharge a firearm unless you have a target and are in a situation where you can identify the target.

Part of gun safety 101 is you don't point and shoot (or even point) unless you intend to hit someone/something. Blindly firing warning shots out into the ether is incredibly irresponsible and probably illegal.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 13, 2014)

Nikushimi said:


> _Never_ discharge a firearm unless you have a target and are in a situation where you can identify the target.
> 
> Part of gun safety 101 is you don't point and shoot (or even point) unless you intend to hit someone/something. Blindly firing warning shots out into the ether is incredibly irresponsible and probably illegal.



But when the stray bullets and shrapnel riddle the neighbor's houses, maybe only the pets and children will die.  Or, we'll get lucky and the Orphans walking around outside will absorb the hap-hazardly fired "warning shots."


----------



## tari101190 (Mar 13, 2014)

Wow, what a barbaric, backwards, disgusting, and inhumane place.

A teenage boy is dead over something so stupid.

And nobody seems to have a problem with the the fact that this boy is dead or that this man has killed him.

He is DEAD. 17 years old. Not even out of school.

And whoever honestly believes the boy was any kind of threat or was there under any nefarious circumstances is an absolute idiot. The dad included.

Why does he have a gun? Why does he have a gun in his house with his children? Why does  America believe they are safer with guns? Maybe compare your statistics of gun violence with countries without legal guns. How many people kids to be killed until America realizes gun are not so great after all?

17 year old boy shot fucking dead. Again.

Counting down until the next 'surprising' shooting of a child.

Only a matter of time until another American mass school shooting too. Haven't heard of one this year yet, but it's only March.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 13, 2014)

Nikushimi said:


> _Never_ discharge a firearm unless you have a target and are in a situation where you can identify the target.
> 
> Part of gun safety 101 is you don't point and shoot (or even point) unless you intend to hit someone/something. Blindly firing warning shots out into the ether is incredibly irresponsible and probably illegal.


Was mostly trying to think of whatever alternate scenarios were available. (Which I should emphasize are meant to be in the most ideal of circumstances, which this situation clearly wasn't given what we know).

But yeah, actually thinking about it, firing a warning shot in a closed space would have been a very bad idea.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> Wow, what a barbaric, backwards, disgusting, and inhumane place.
> 
> A teenage boy is dead over something so stupid.
> 
> ...



You get a name change, Fiona?


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 13, 2014)

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I see the father as the main bad guy in all of this. Keep in mind that a person isn't an intruder simply because you don't know who they are, otherwise we'd all have the right to shoot anybody a family member invited to your house. Not only that, according to the article the daughter reportedly said that she didn't know the boy and that they weren't in bed. Well considering that the father DID catch them in bed, that should have at least clued him in that his daughter was lying and just trying to hide the fact that she was having sex.

That's really what this is all about. His "baby girl" was doing whatever a normal teen would do and he didn't like it. Hence why we get this typical "he was reaching for a weapon" crap, which I've noticed is becoming a very common excuse every time a person is killed.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 13, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> Wow, what a barbaric, backwards, disgusting, and inhumane place.
> 
> A teenage boy is dead over something so stupid.
> 
> ...



In bed with a 13 year old? Seems innocent to me...


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 13, 2014)

Moe said:


> The father was not at fault.
> 
> He asked his daughter who the man was. She denied knowing who he was.
> 
> He assumes he might be a predator/creep/rapist/robber/whatever. Sees him move and reach for something after telling him not to and shoots him as a result.



It's the daughter fault indeed. A pity for the poor young man...

Well, at least he's no longer living in this bullshit filled world... Guess he won something in the end, hopefully he's somewhere better now.


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

The daughter was 16...


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 13, 2014)

navy said:


> The daughter was 16...



Ah you're right. I apparently had the date of 13th engrained into my head as her age.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 13, 2014)

navy said:


> The daughter was 16...


Regardless, he was still intruding into his property without permission, and engaging in what appeared to be intercourse with his daughter when he was caught. And when the daughter said she didn't know him, and probably already full of adrenaline, protective instinct, whatever, immediately concluded it was non-consensual and shot him.

The only part of the story that still needs to be verified is the whole "I thought he was reaching for something" part from the father. Other than that, it's not like the father's first thought was "I'm gonna kill him!"


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

There is no verification to be made as the kid is dead. Maybe the daughter can be drilled into revealing what really happened, but I wouldnt put money on it. 
Sad story. Not gun law related.


----------



## Neurological (Mar 13, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> The girl lied not the boy.



That's who I meant, his daughter, not the boy.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 13, 2014)

Ninja Shadow Warrior said:


> In bed with a 13 year old? Seems innocent to me...



She was 16.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 13, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> Wow, what a barbaric, backwards, disgusting, and inhumane place.
> 
> A teenage boy is dead over something so stupid.
> 
> ...



I think everyone here (and there) has a problem with it, but the circumstances are such that the father can't really be blamed for what he did (assuming the story we've been given is accurate).



> And whoever honestly believes the boy was any kind of threat or was there under any nefarious circumstances is an absolute idiot. The dad included.



How do you know? Were you there? Did you see the kid? No? Then who are you to judge?



> Why does he have a gun?



Who knows; self-defense, hobby, he just wanted to own one... Doesn't matter.



> Why does he have a gun in his house with his children?



Guns and children aren't mutually exclusive; my dad used to take me shooting all the time when I was little. That helped me to understand responsible gun ownership instead of being ignorant and irrationally afraid of guns.



> Why does  America believe they are safer with guns?



Probably the same reason the police and militaries around the world do. Just sayin'.



> Maybe compare your statistics of gun violence with countries without legal guns.



Guns aren't the only tool used to commit violent crimes; you may as well look at all violent crime statistics to get the full picture.

In addition, just because something carries a statistical risk doesn't mean it should be prohibited. If you're going to operate on that rationale, then you may as well exercise similar restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, and motor vehicles. Just saying; by a wide margin, the people who own and operate firearms in the U.S. do so their whole lives without incident.



> How many people kids to be killed until America realizes gun are not so great after all?



"America" isn't just one, uniform hivemind; nothing is going to cause a unanimous shift in popular opinion on this subject or any other.



> 17 year old boy shot fucking dead. Again.
> 
> Counting down until the next 'surprising' shooting of a child.



It's unfortunate, but this particular incident stands as a textbook example of why you should never break into a person's house.



> Only a matter of time until another American mass school shooting too. Haven't heard of one this year yet, but it's only March.



That's strange; schools are supposed to be "gun-free" zones.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 13, 2014)

navy said:


> *Maybe the daughter can be drilled* into revealing what really happened



Isn't that what caused this whole mess in the first place?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 13, 2014)

Guess the wrong nut got busted.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 13, 2014)

Guess it ended with a premature discharge.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> Oh yeah, I just noticed that the article makes NO mention of race. That obviously means that the shooter wasn't white, or the victim wasn't black, otherwise, this entire article wouldn't go a sentence without talking about race and racism.



Family was black. Not sure about the kid, I didn't finish the video.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 13, 2014)

Now the only question is "Who fired the first shot?"


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Lol Fiona... stricter gun laws would not have prevented this from happening.  The man walked into a room and found a guy in bed with his daughter whom he was lied to. How would have stricter gun laws prevented this?



Not having a gun in the first place?



Mill?n Vasto said:


> What a dumbass daugther. Guy should have idenitified himself.  Heck I'd definately consider the option of shooting an unknown stranger in my house if I had the option too.
> 
> The world is quite dangerous and tough. Bullshit like trying to subdue an invader who's with your loved ones with the the least amount of force is always easy to say afterwards. Heck I'd wonder how many people wouldn't instantly attempt to brutally beat the living shit out of  an stranger in thier house by using any means nessary if the opurtunity arises.
> 
> People aren't some bullshit machines that will first try to rationalise the situation beforehand in situations like these?



You of all people...

For one, you don't pull the trigger right away unless lives are in danger. You either shoot at a nonlethal part (limbs) or don't at all.



Toroxus said:


> I'm failing to see how the father is at fault here based on the known information. The daughter is at fault.
> If what the father believed the situation was, was true, that being that there was a rapist in his daughter's room and was reaching for a weapon, Yeah, I'd shoot him too.



Not you too!



tari101190 said:


> Wow, what a barbaric, backwards, disgusting, and inhumane place.
> 
> A teenage boy is dead over something so stupid.
> 
> ...



There'll be one tomorrow, trust me, it will.



Moe said:


> You get a name change, Fiona?



She's still here.

PS: Fiona, don't waste your time here. The Cafe can be illogical at times...


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Mar 13, 2014)

Bioness said:


> Okay how about this. If the daughter were to wake up or even be aware of the strangers presence, shouldn't there have been a strong reaction from the daughter like oh I don't know, a scream? Running to her father's side? Anything other than saying "she doesn't him" and then adding that they "were not in bed together". Like what kind of reaction is that to your father brandishing a gun at your boyfriend/fuck buddy/one night stand/whatever.
> 
> This story to me screams bullshit on the father's side. He shot because he was overzealous and paranoid, he reached the worse conclusion and brashly acted on it. Send his ass to jail.


Some people freeze up when they are scared FYI.


navy said:


> I dont trust the story to be honest.
> 
> There is no way the Dad would have came in there with the gun and the kids would have reacted the way that is claimed.



The story when you think about it seems weird, let's just see what happens.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

@ sleipnyr - I'll shoot to kill if I see an individual reach for something when I've already told them not to move.

I'm not going to take a chance just so that I won't kill him.


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 13, 2014)

Yeah the part about "The boy reached for something" sounds like a bullshit excuse. 
And the father has to take the full responsibility. Even for the daughters mistake, since he is her father!



Moe said:


> @ sleipnyr - I'll shoot to kill if I see an individual reach for something when I've already told them not to move.
> 
> I'm not going to take a chance just so that I won't kill him.


Even at a little kid? lol.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> And I knew that you would be in here victim blaming.
> 
> The boy did nothing wrong. The girl lied and her father over-reacted and now a boy is dead.
> 
> ...


Murder is the *unlawful* (keyword here) killing of another human being. Now lets take a look at the facts:

1) Man hears strange noises coming from upstairs, specifically his daughters bedroom and goes to investigate with his legally owned weapon at the ready.

2) Man finds a stranger in his daughters bed.

3) Man asks stranger to identify himself. The stranger does not identify himself.

4) Mans daughter says she doesn't know who the strange man is.

5) Man orders stranger to stay still and not reach for anything.

6) Stranger disregards orders and reaches for an unidentified object.

7) Man shoots the unidentified, non-compliant strange man he finds in his daughters bed at 2:20am.


Under the assumption that events unfolded as exactly as described in the article, how is that murder? A man has a right to protect his family and his home.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Raidoton said:


> Yeah the part about "The boy reached for something" sounds like a bullshit excuse.
> And the father has to take the full responsibility. Even for the daughters mistake, since he is her father!
> 
> Even at a little kid? lol.



No, I'd first see what he pulled. I'd be rising getting shot at, but I'd be willing to make an exception in this case. Also kids panic all the time and don't listen to instructions.


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> Murder is the *unlawful* (keyword here) killing of another human being. Now lets take a look at the facts:



That's a loose use of the word fact.


----------



## Patchouli (Mar 13, 2014)

> as his daughter chose to say that she had no idea who the boy was.





> The confrontation led to gunfire after the boy made a move to grab something.



Daughter's reaction paints the guy as some random rapist, at least from the view of the father who didn't know what was going on.

Guy made a sudden move while a gun was pointed at him.

tl;dr: idiotic kids make all the wrong moves while an overprotective father has a gun.


----------



## Fiona (Mar 13, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> She's still here.
> 
> PS: Fiona, don't waste your time here. The Cafe can be illogical at times...



Oh trust me I know. 

I dont even bother anymore for the most part, only in cases like this where its cut and dry do I come in and post the correct view on the topic and move along.


----------



## KFC (Mar 13, 2014)

It's a childish first response on the girl's behalf that she would say that she didn't know the boy. It was stupid, however, for the dad not to immediately know what the hell was going on.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 13, 2014)

navy said:


> That's a loose use of the word fact.


I didn't use the word loosely. The man was within his rights to use a legally owned weapon to protect his underaged daughter and property from what he perceived to be an intruder and threat to their safety.


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

KFC said:


> It's a childish first response on the girl's behalf that she would say that she didn't know the boy. It was stupid, however, for the dad not to immediately know what the hell was going on.



That's why i remain skeptical. The daughter basically told her dad to shoot him.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 13, 2014)

Moe said:


> @ sleipnyr - I'll shoot to kill if I see an individual reach for something when I've already told them not to move.
> 
> I'm not going to take a chance just so that I won't kill him.



Then you shoot a warning first to make it clear you're serious. Even if that doesn't stop the person, it still stuns them long enough to neutralize them.

If you truly need to shoot, you shoot the offending part, not the torso (not unless the enemy is brandishing a gun).

Yes, you can shoot those rather easily. If you can't, you shouldn't be owning a gun in the first place.



Louis-954 said:


> Murder is the *unlawful* (keyword here) killing of another human being. Now lets take a look at the facts:
> 
> 1) Man strange noises coming from upstairs, specifically his daughters bedroom and goes to investigate with his legally owned weapon at the ready.
> 
> ...



He has no right to use lethal force on an unarmed invader.

As a whole, I'm against gun law. If people want self defense weapons, they should buy tasers...


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Oh trust me I know.
> 
> I dont even bother anymore for the most part, only in cases like this where its cut and dry do I come in and post the correct view on the topic and move along.



That grammar :/.
Also Fiona

Everyone else in Cafe, according to Fiona.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Mar 13, 2014)

Well for all we know the Dad might of just shot him once in a attempt to subdue him but hey even one bullet can kill. Just saying we don't have all the information, but based on what we do have and assuming its all true. 

All people involved did not do very well, but given the circumstances its understandable. All three of them were probably scared and nervous, more so the boy that got shot of course. Its unfortunate, but with the info we got i don't think the dad deserves to go to prison.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> I dont even bother anymore for the most part, only in cases like this where its cut and dry do I come in and post the correct view on the topic and move along.



and here he/she/it/sheit is, folks.

Your "Holier than Thou" member, descending from their imaginary pedestal to grace us all with their presence.


----------



## Bitch (Mar 13, 2014)

I don't believe the story one bit.

The more likely scenario is that the dad walked in and shot the boy in a fit of rage, knowing the teenagers were having consensual sex, and either made the daughter lie or she chose to lie herself to defend her father and possibly lower his sentence/get him off free.  

We really only have the father's word on this case, since the boy is obviously dead and the girl is his flesh and blood.  

The actions by all parties makes absolutely no sense.  

How does the father not know there is a boy in his house?  

How did the boy get into the girl's room and lie on the same bed as her without hearing her scream/panic if he really was a stranger?  

Why would the daughter blatantly lie to her father while he has a gun pointed at her boyfriend/lover?  

What could the boy have reached for that would be so threatening?  "Unknown item" in a house he doesn't even own?

Why couldn't the father simply restrain the boy through other means?  He was merely a teenager.  

Hopefully the dead boy's parents/guardians file charges against the killer and his daughter.  This story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 13, 2014)

Bitch said:


> I don't believe the story one bit.
> 
> The more likely scenario is that the dad walked in and shot the boy in a fit of rage, knowing the teenagers were having consensual sex, and either made the daughter lie or she chose to lie herself to defend her father and possibly lower his sentence/get him off free.
> 
> ...


Sums it up pretty well!


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 13, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> *He has no right to use lethal force on an unarmed invader.*
> 
> As a whole, I'm against gun law. If people want self defense weapons, they should buy tasers...


Oh but he did.


> *Stand Your Ground*
> 
> Senate Bill 378 also contains a ""  clause; A person who has a legal right to be wherever he/she is at the  time of a defensive shooting has no "duty to retreat" before being  justified in shooting. The "trier of fact" (the jury in a jury trial,  otherwise the judge) may not consider whether the person retreated when  deciding whether the person was justified in shooting (TPC 9.32(c,d)).





> 1868 Cattle Ranchers Law  in Texas which still is in effect to date states *you can shoot anyone  that trespasses onto your property* can be shot because they deem harm to  you and your livelihood.


On top of the aforementioned he had a license to own and carry a firearm. 

Again, lets review:


Strange noises coming from daughters bedroom* at 2:20am*
Strange man in bed with* under aged daughter*
Man *doesn't identify himself*
Daughter (liar) *cannot identify the man in her bed*
Man *does not comply with orders* to stay still
Man* reaches for what *could* be a weapon* and gets shot.


So again I ask you, how was he not within his rights to open fire?



Bitch said:


> I don't believe the story one bit.
> 
> The more likely scenario is that the dad walked in and shot the boy in a  fit of rage, knowing the teenagers were having consensual sex, and  either made the daughter lie or she chose to lie herself to defend her  father and possibly lower his sentence/get him off free.
> 
> ...


Yes it's a tragedy that this kid lost his life, but that doesn't mean the father wasn't justified given the circumstances of the situation. The fact remains that he's a free man and that he has specific rights he's allowed to exercise.


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 13, 2014)

not familiar with US gun laws or in this case Texas' but i think i read here before that a man can shoot a stranger if he trespasses/invades his property or something like that in Texas...if that is correct then the dad might not go to jail after all


----------



## navy (Mar 13, 2014)

dummy plug said:


> not familiar with US gun laws or in this case Texas' but i think i read here before that a man can shoot a stranger if he trespasses/invades his property or something like that in Texas...if that is correct then the dad might not go to jail after all



Well, the Dad would pretty much be allowed to shoot in any state if the story played out like they said it did.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 13, 2014)

errybody goes to jail


----------



## SLB (Mar 13, 2014)

^ Sounds like a plan


----------



## Bitch (Mar 13, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> How does the father not know there is a boy in his house? *Dumb question, murderers, rapists & thieves sneak into residences undetected all of the time.*
> 
> How did the boy get into the girl's room and lie on the same bed as her without hearing her scream/panic if he really was a stranger? *For all the father knew he could have threatened her to stay quiet.
> *
> ...



I'm not saying the story is untrue, just that it is _EXTREMELY_ unlikely the events that took place happened exactly as the story said they did.

The article is poorly written and lacks many important details, but rape from strangers is extremely rare in comparison to rape from a known acquaintance.  It is ESPECIALLY rare that a random rapist would invade a home, let alone the home of an underaged girl who has dependents, just for the sake of rape.  Don't let movies/television/sensationalist stories fool you into thinking this scenario is at all common.

He was also a teenage boy who was presumably lying in the same bed as the girl.  There was no weapon pointed at her nor he didn't have her in a position in which she couldn't speak.   

Yes, people lie.  She could have been trying to just save herself, but it is unlikely that she is THAT stupid.  She is 16, not 6.  If her father is pointing a gun at her boyfriend/lover, a proper reaction would be to scream and admit the truth, not blatantly lie in such an unrealistic manner.  The article makes it seem like she replied to her father in an extremely nonchalant way... which makes no sense given the situation she was in.

Yes, that's a given, and I would agree with you if the story didn't seem so obviously fabricated by the father.  The self-defense excuse is ALWAYS used in stories like this, and since there are no live witnesses to the crime besides his own flesh and blood, he is likely to get off scotch free for it.  The father should have had the common sense to deduce what was going on.  He's not a child.  He's obviously had sex before and has very likely been in similar situations in his life (I mean, its Houston ).  He had the boy in a compromising position and SUPPOSEDLY had enough time to ask both the boy and his daughter for identification.  IF what he is saying is true, he should have had enough time to put the pieces together and realize that the kid is just a kid who's trying to fuck his daughter.

He most likely acted in a fit of rage and killed the boy on the spot and then fabricated a story with his daughter to reduce his sentence/get him off free.


----------



## Nep Nep (Mar 13, 2014)

What a dumbass dad I mean seriously? You had to fucking know what's going on. She wasn't crying, she didn't have any bruises so consensual sex... 

What a bitch ass gf too, if ghosts existed and I was her dead bf I'd haunt her ass for the rest of her life for that shit.


----------



## Zxionyanna (Mar 13, 2014)

Moe said:


> Can you explain to me how this is murder?


he just fucking killed another human being!

how is it _not _murder?


----------



## wooly Eullerex (Mar 13, 2014)

> You had to fucking know what's going on.



my thoughts on the matter as well.

but I don't think the dad should go to jail cuz all 3 parties r guilty of extreme stupidity.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 13, 2014)

Zxionyanna said:


> he just fucking killed another human being!
> 
> how is it _not _murder?



Self-defense isn't murder.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Bitch said:


> He was also a teenage boy who was presumably lying in the same bed as the girl.  There was no weapon pointed at her nor he didn't have her in a position in which she couldn't speak.



That's the main stickler with me.

Two hormonal teenagers having sex in the bed. Not really out of the ordinary. It's also not that rare for teens to sneak in their boy/girlfriends to have sex, especially if their parents are old-fashioned. Go ask any group of people and I can guarantee you many of them have done, or their kids have done this exact thing.

The dad is right to be mad, but putting a bullet in a kid's head? And the whole "he was reaching for a weapon" is pretty silly as well. Yes, a naked teen with a gun pointed at him is obviously going to reach for a weapon.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> Oh but he did.
> On top of the aforementioned he had a license to own and carry a firearm.
> 
> Again, lets review:
> ...



Shit, that law is dangerous! I officially join the Gun Law Bandwagon. I mean, really? Can you shoot someone if they haven't been identified as a threat just because of a hunch?!



Moe said:


> Self-defense isn't murder.



Defense against which threat?


----------



## Zxionyanna (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> Self-defense isn't murder.


self defense?

i mean do you really expect your child to say "dad, this is my boyfriend and we were just fucking before you interrupted us"


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Shit, that law is dangerous! I officially join the Gun Law Bandwagon. I mean, really? *Can you shoot someone if they haven't been identified as a threat just because of a hunch?!**
> 
> 
> 
> Defense against which threat?*


It was more than a "hunch". It was 2:20am, he was in his under aged daughters bed, he refused to identify himself, she couldn't identify him and he did not comply with orders to* stay still and not reach for anything or make sudden movements.* What the hell else was he supposed to assume under those circumstances other than that the strange boy was an intruder?

Is he supposed to wait until there's a gun in his face before he opens fire? He has the right to defend himself, his property and his family!


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> It was more than a "hunch". It was 2:20am, he was in his under aged daughters bed, he refused to identify himself, she couldn't identify him and he did not comply with orders to* stay still and not reach for anything or make sudden movements.* What the hell else was he supposed to assume under those circumstances?
> 
> Is he supposed to wait until there's a gun in his face before he opens fire? He has the right to defend himself, his property and his family!



I think there's something called a warning shot. And it's usually the last step before actually open fire so as to enforce compliance. Also, if you have a gun, you shouldn't fear another one. As far as I know, two guns have the same weight.

Do you think this man (and or his daughter) should get free because of the daughter not protecting the guy she did know?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Defense against which threat?



The stranger in your daughter's room, who has not only failed to identify himself, but refused to comply with your orders to stay put.



Zxionyanna said:


> self defense?
> 
> i mean do you really expect your child to say "dad, this is my boyfriend and we were just fucking before you interrupted us"



What does that have to with what I said?




Sleipnyr said:


> I think there's something called a warning shot. And it's usually the last step before actually open fire so as to enforce compliance.



So you want me to take a warning shot for someone, who at gunpoint, decided to move and reach for something despite being told not to? Do a warning shot, just watch him panic and shoot in return. If he believes you are shooting at him, the most probable thing he would do is return fire not comply.



Sleipnyr said:


> Also, if you have a gun, you shouldn't fear another one. As far as I know, two guns have the same weight.



Even if you had a rocket launcher and your enemy had a bow and arrow, you should still fear him becuz you know, IRL people actually die from these kind of injuries.



Sleipnyr said:


> Do you think this man (and or his daughter) should get free because of the daughter not protecting the guy she did know?



If what happened in this article is true, the man should walk away scot-free and a pat on the back for not shooting him immediately, but rather asking him to identify himself and not to move - which he did not comply with.


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> What the hell else was he supposed to assume under those circumstances other than that the strange boy was an intruder?


That it was her boyfriend since she didn't scream "Dad! Please help! He tried to rape me!!"...

It's also outstanding how you take the word of the killer for granted 



Moe said:


> If what happened in this article is true, the man should walk away scot-free and a pat on the back for not shooting him immediately, but rather asking him to identify himself and not to move - which he did not comply with.


He should take responsibility since it was his daughter who didn't clarify the situation and gave the dad permission to shoot. But taking responsibility isn't an american thing I guess...


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Raidoton said:


> That it was her boyfriend since she didn't scream "Dad! Please help! He tried to rape me!!"...
> 
> It's also outstanding how you take the word of the killer for granted
> 
> He should take responsibility since it was his daughter who didn't clarify the situation and gave the dad permission to shoot. But taking responsibility isn't an american thing I guess...



We take whatever is provided and form an opinion with it. If new evidence comes to light, conflicting with the father's story, then we'll shift our opinion accordingly.

He obviously will take the responsibility of the death, he couldn't avoid even if he tried considering the kids blood is on his hands, but that does not mean he has to be punished for it.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> The stranger in your daughter's room, who has not only failed to identify himself, but refused to comply with your orders to stay put.



How is that threatening your life?



> So you want me to take a warning shot for someone, who at gunpoint, decided to move and reach for something despite being told not to? Do a warning shot, just watch him panic and shoot in return. If he believes you are shooting at him, the most probable thing he would do is return fire not comply.



Warning shots stun everyone. Not just because, but because the noise made actually throws off people. You should have enough time to get ahold of the person unless the room is huge.



> Even if you had a rocket launcher and your enemy had a bow and arrow, you should still fear him becuz you know, IRL people actually die from these kind of injuries.
> 
> If what happened in this article is true, the man should walk away scot-free and a pat on the back for not shooting him immediately, but rather asking him to identify himself and not to move - which he did not comply with.



There is also such a thing as shooting so as to disable rather than kill.

If the man truly does walk away free and gets nothing at all for doing what he did, I'll say that America has a failed government.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> The father was not at fault.
> 
> He asked his daughter who the man was. She denied knowing who he was.
> 
> He assumes he might be a predator/creep/rapist/robber/whatever. Sees him move and reach for something after telling him not to and shoots him as a result.



agreed since the law allow you kill intruder in US
I can agree the dad is no wrong, bit excessive if I must say
if I was the dad, in banned gun country still I would beat him till he can't move. dead or not I would not care.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I think there's something called a warning shot. And it's usually the last step before actually open fire so as to enforce compliance. Also, if you have a gun, you shouldn't fear another one. As far as I know, two guns have the same weight.
> 
> Do you think this man (and or his daughter) should get free because of the daughter not protecting the guy she did know?


If I had *reason to believe* (and he did have *reason to believe*) that my family was in danger then why the fuck would I fire a warning shot? How do I know he won't reach for a concealed weapon and blow my head off while I'm firing  "warning shots"? The kid is lucky the guy even gave him a chance to identify himself and comply with orders in the first place. He didn't even owe him that much.



Raidoton said:


> That it was her boyfriend since she didn't scream "Dad! Please help! He tried to rape me!!"...
> 
> * It's also outstanding how you take the word of the killer for granted *
> 
> He should take responsibility since it was his daughter who didn't clarify the situation and gave the dad permission to shoot. But taking responsibility isn't an american thing I guess...


Innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> How is that threatening your life?



He reached for something, at gunpoint, despite being told not to. The most logical thing an intruder would reach for would be a gun. I highly doubt he would pull out a fucking puppy.



> Warning shots stun everyone. Not just because, but because the noise made actually throws off people. You should have enough time to get ahold of the person unless the room is huge.



Okay, first of all, I don't know exactly where you come from or whatever pristine fantasy you woke up from, but intruders come in with a resolve, and they will shoot back. A warning shot might work for different situations, you might get some would-be-hero to drop his gun in fear, but for an intruder, they will most likely fight back if they hear a gun shot. They'll just shoot in your general direction and run for it. Also, why do I have to be consdierate of your life? Why do I have to take your safety into consideration? to be considerate enough to drop my gun and wrestle you so that I may not kill by accident, but rather so that you could bash my head in with my own blender?



> There is also such a thing as shooting so as to disable rather than kill.



You'd have to be naive to believe people are capable of being that accurate. Surprise surprise, there is a reason why people unload an entire clip, it is because they miss. And if it had been shotgun, then there really is no point in shooting to disable. Also, like jesus, you have to be able to separate anime reality with real life. There aren't many places you can shoot someone that would not leave them bleeding to death if unattended to long enough. I would go so far as to say that you'd prolly make more shots trying to disable someone then when trying to kill them. Let me shoot you in the soldiers. Oh, crap, why are you bleeding from head?



> If the man truly does walk away free and gets nothing at all for doing what he did, I'll say that America has a failed government.



What does this have to do with the American government? I don't even get why you brought it up considering it is the most minuscule of domestic issues that the government, as it should leaves to local enforcers. The gun was discharged in the individuals home. Not in the streets. Not in a school.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 14, 2014)

Part of the story sounds like some bullshit some lawyer cooked up. Especially the part where the teenage boy was reaching for an unknown object? Why the fuck would he do that when someone is pointing a gun at you? He is a teenage boy who freaked out when his girlfriend dad caught them in the act.He is not a well seasoned criminal. Its a shame we won't know his side of the story.

Anyway if the event played like as described then I think I would have done the same thing.Its a damn shame that the boy had to die. I can't imagine what victim's family is going through.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> He reached for something, at gunpoint, despite being told not to. The most logical thing an intruder would reach for would be a gun. I highly doubt he would pull out a fucking puppy.



Look below.



> Okay, first of all, I don't know exactly where you come from or whatever pristine fantasy you woke up from, but intruders come in with a resolve, and they will shoot back. A warning shot might work for different situations, you might get some would-be-hero to drop his gun in fear, but for an intruder, they will most likely fight back if they hear a gun shot. They'll just shoot in your general direction and run for it.



Prepared or not. A warning shot is not something useless. It's loud. Really loud. Your eardrums hurt and you're thrown off for at least a good two seconds before you remember what's going on. Specially in a reduced space. You can easily get in bed, point the gun directly on his head and tell him to stand up. No one that isn't suicidal would pull out a gun when they could be shot on the spot. If he does move then you can now simply point the gun at his arm instead if he really attempts something.



> You'd have to be naive to believe people are capable of being that accurate. Surprise surprise, there is a reason why people unload an entire clip, it is because they miss. Also, like jesus, you have to be able to separate anime reality with real life. There aren't many places you can shoot someone that would not leave them bleeding to death if unattended to long enough.





At such a close distance, he could've shoot him in the stomach as well.



> What does this have to do with the American government? I don't even get why you brought it up considering it is the most minuscule of domestic issues that the government, as it should leaves to local enforcers. The gun was discharged in the individuals home. Not in the streets. Not in a school.



It doesn't matter where. Unless someone chooses to or someone posses a _credible_ threat, killing is a crime.


----------



## BashFace (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> Can you explain to me how this is murder?



I hate to agree but there is no evidence to show that it was premeditated it's all just word of mouth possible lies and a body on the floor. Father says he shot him because he was an intruder in his daughters bedroom, if we go by account it's not murder. If we speculate it is murder. 

The only way this is murder is if the dad knew who it was in the room and walked in and shot him. 

The other scenario possible is that the man she was sleeping with wasn't her boyfriend or anyone she cared about and when the dad killed him of course she lied to police.

Whether its unbelievable and can be proved wrong are two separate things so until they can prove anything there won't be any way that this is murder.

So yeah this is very dodgy, if it can't be proved it isn't.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

The moment she did not identify the boy, he became a dangerous intruder.

This is not murder, this is self defense.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

If you are a stranger and you are in my home, you are automatically a credible threat. End. Of. Story.

If I am armed, your life is in my hands. If, at any point, I feel I am in danger, I will shoot to kill, as should everybody else.


----------



## hmph (Mar 14, 2014)

...yeah I'd call this murder. A guy reaching for something doesn't give you a right to shoot them. Wouldn't be surprised if he was reaching for his underwear. And if he had time to ask the girl a question this wasn't the moment he walked in the boy reached for something either. A lot of clues the guy wasn't invading the house regardless of the girl claiming she doesn't know him. Ultimately the result of an unthinking father pulling the trigger too fast.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 14, 2014)

Zxionyanna said:


> there is a thing called a warning shot



What is a "warning shot"?

Are you suggesting that he should have discharged his firearm into the floor, walls, or ceiling?

Because that would have been a very bad idea.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Look below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) You're being ridiculous. Suicidal would be letting him get within arms length of my fire arm as you're suggesting. All it would take is one swift movement and there could easily be a struggle over the firearm. What sane person would risk that? Standing at a distance and demanding compliance is as far as any intelligent person would compromise. If you're in my house uninvited you're asking for trouble, why should I risk my safety when the intruder has zero regard for my own?

2) The *unlawlful (murder)* killing of another human being is a crime. Using deadly force to ensure the protection of your home and family with a registered and licensed firearm against a trespasser is not a crime. Brush up on the law and 2nd amendment rights.



hmph said:


> ...yeah I'd call this murder.* A guy reaching for  something doesn't give you a right to shoot them.* Wouldn't be surprised  if he was reaching for his underwear. And if he had time to ask the girl  a question this wasn't the moment he walked in the boy reached for  something either. A lot of clues the guy wasn't invading the house  regardless of the girl claiming she doesn't know him. Ultimately the  result of an unthinking father pulling the trigger too fast.


Yes it does. He told him to identify himself and told him not to move. He gave the kid two golden opportunities to diffuse the situation. There's no such thing as pulling the trigger too fast when a non-compliant intruder reaches for something after being ordered not to.* Like hell *I'm going to wait until there's a gun pointed at *my face* before taking action.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

hmph said:


> ...yeah I'd call this murder. A guy reaching for something doesn't give you a right to shoot them. Wouldn't be surprised if he was reaching for his underwear. And if he had time to ask the girl a question this wasn't the moment he walked in the boy reached for something either. A lot of clues the guy wasn't invading the house regardless of the girl claiming she doesn't know him. Ultimately the result of an unthinking father pulling the trigger too fast.



Not murder. Even if the kid identified himself he would still be an intruder. When the daughter did not identify him he became a dangerous intruder. You're imaging a perfect world, the question the father asked and the kid reaching for something probably happened in less than 2 seconds.

Also, heres the definition of murder, you're welcome.

"the unlawful *premeditated* killing of one human being by another."

Now if the father knew the boy friend and walked through the door and killed him, then yes in another universe you would be right.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 14, 2014)

BashFace said:


> I hate to agree but there is no evidence to show that it was premeditated it's all just word of mouth possible lies and a body on the floor. Father says he shot him because he was an intruder in his daughters bedroom, if we go by account it's not murder. If we speculate it is murder.
> 
> The only way this is murder is if the dad knew who it was in the room and walked in and shot him.
> 
> ...



A killing doesn't need to be premeditated to be murder.  Killing somebody without premeditation is called murder in the second degree.  You can still get life in prison for second degree murder.


----------



## thewalkindude (Mar 14, 2014)

'Reaching for a weapon'? Bloody crock of shit 'tis. Personally I'd fold when someones holding bullets. (Poker jokes, look it up.)

 I'd place my bets on a mitigating artifice proposed after the dad shot a horny defenseless teenager fiddling with his overly-fond-of-daughter-because-he's-probably-sexually-attracted-to-her in cold blood. Or hot.


----------



## kluang (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> The boy simply FREAKED . Like every other teenager would do . Some scream, some pass out, some just simply can't say a word . Do not try to put the blame on a guy who was shot dead because he panicked and couldn't say a word .



Thats not even the problem.  He's in another family house and in their daughter's room without entering from the front door. The father can shoot him for that.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Enclave said:


> A killing doesn't need to be premeditated to be murder.  Killing somebody without premeditation is called murder in the second degree.  You can still get life in prison for second degree murder.



Castle Law, look it up.


> I think there's something called a warning shot. And it's usually the last step before actually open fire so as to enforce compliance. Also, if you have a gun, you shouldn't fear another one. As far as I know, two guns have the same weight.



Did I just read someone complaining about not firing a warning shot? Just so that poster knows firing a warning shot is illegal as it indicates you did not feel the threat was warranting deadly force(as you had "time" to evaluate the situation") and is gun negligence. This is not the movies, when you draw your gun and shoot, its shoot to kill. Anything else is considered negligent and can get you in trouble even if you were 100 percent justified in your actions.

As it stands the homeowner is in the right here.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> 1) You're being ridiculous. Suicidal would be letting him get within arms length of my fire arm as you're suggesting. All it would take is one swift movement and there could easily be a struggle over the firearm. What sane person would risk that? Standing at a distance and demanding compliance is as far as any intelligent person would compromise. If you're in my house uninvited you're asking for trouble, why should I risk my safety when the intruder has zero regard for my own?
> 
> 2) The *unlawlful (murder)* killing of another human being is a crime. Using deadly force to ensure the protection of your home and family with a registered and licensed firearm against a trespasser is not a crime. Brush up on the law and 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> ...



This is all ignoring the fact that the guy had rights too! If he was a genuine intruder it would've been fine, but revealing that she knew the guy? It automatically should become a crime. Taking another life when said life is proven innocent, before or after should be a crime.



Chelydra said:


> Castle Law, look it up.
> 
> 
> Did I just read someone complaining about not firing a warning shot? Just so that poster knows firing a warning shot is illegal as it indicates you did not feel the threat was warranting deadly force(as you had "time" to evaluate the situation") and is gun negligence. This is not the movies, when you draw your gun and shoot, its shoot to kill. Anything else is considered negligent and can get you in trouble even if you were 100 percent justified in your actions.
> ...



There are laws that demand you kill the threat?! Just what kind of fucked up law do you have?!


----------



## Blitzomaru (Mar 14, 2014)

dammit people the world is going to hell when I have to agree with JSJ....


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

> There are laws that demand you kill the threat?! Just what kind of fucked up law do you have?!



Typical European attitude.... if you have time to fire warning shots then you did not feel the threat was necessary enough to warrant drawing a gun. Legally your supposed to shoot to kill the target, anything else and you will get get charged with felonies as again you had time to react and consider that your life or that of your family's was not threatened enough to warrant deadly force.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Typical European attitude.... if you have time to fire warning shots then you did not feel the threat was necessary enough to warrant drawing a gun. Legally your supposed to shoot to kill the target, anything else and you will get get charged with felonies as again you had time to react and consider that your life or that of your family's was not threatened enough to warrant deadly force.



Ugh... I give up... If there's anyone who supports gun law reform, tell me. I'll join you...

So he gets away because he killed an innocent... Well, no more visiting America.


----------



## Mizura (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> There are laws that demand you kill the threat?! Just what kind of fucked up law do you have?!


I do think it sounds a bit off, but you can think of it this way: "I am pointing a loaded gun at you and I know how to use it!" should be warning enough.

Shooting guns in random directions is dangerous.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Castle Law, look it up.



The kid was invited, castle law is irrelevant.  He was in the home 100% legally.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Mizura said:


> I do think it sounds a bit off, but you can think of it this way: "I am pointing a loaded gun at you and I know how to use it!" should be warning enough.
> 
> Shooting guns in random directions is dangerous.



That's why I don't really support gun ownership at all. It's one of those things I believe Japan did well. If you want to drive intruders out, use a taser.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Enclave said:


> The kid was invited, castle law is irrelevant.  He was in the home 100% legally.



Daughter said otherwise. Father took appropriate action.



Sleipnyr said:


> Ugh... I give up... If there's anyone who supports gun law reform, tell me. I'll join you...
> 
> So he gets away because he killed an innocent... Well, no more visiting America.




What are you getting at everything was done legally according to the information currently given. Don't go into random people's houses and you will be fine. its not like the media portrays it where everyone is wavin their guns around like the western movies....


----------



## Mizura (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> That's why I don't really support gun ownership at all. It's one of those things I believe Japan did well. If you want to drive intruders out, use a taser.


I don't support gun ownership either. I don't plan on ever living in an area with lots of guns around. If the boy was highly unlikely to have a gun himself, the owner may not have felt threatened to the point of shooting the boy. It's something of an arm's race.

This is the U.S. unfortunately, and I've come to realize that for now, it's impossible to make sure the 'bad' guys get rid of their guns, and as long as that's the case, everyone else there won't feel safe about not owning a gun themselves. :\


----------



## Tyrannos (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I think there's something called a warning shot. And it's usually the last step before actually open fire so as to enforce compliance. Also, if you have a gun, you shouldn't fear another one. As far as I know, two guns have the same weight.
> 
> Do you think this man (and or his daughter) should get free because of the daughter not protecting the guy she did know?



Warning shots are not legal in some states.   And there are consequences if Warning shots should hit someone.   Especially if you fire it into the air (what comes up, must come down), or it ricochets.  Then you would be facing manslaughter charges.


So in your scenario, you are better off with non-lethal defenses.  Like Tazers, Bean Bag guns, or disable strobes.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Daughter said otherwise. Father took appropriate action.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but it's not fair that you were actually invited, and then they say otherwise and they kill you because of it. They're misleading you.



Tyrannos said:


> Warning shots are not legal in some states.   And there are consequences if Warning shots should hit someone.   Especially if you fire it into the air (what comes up, must come down), or it ricochets.  Then you would be facing manslaughter charges.
> 
> 
> So in your scenario, you are better off with non-lethal defenses.  Like Tazers, Bean Bag guns, or disable strobes.



If that's it, then I'll just steer clear of the US for the time being.


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 14, 2014)

America is such a wonderful country


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Yeah, but it's not fair that you were actually invited, and then they say otherwise and they kill you because of it. They're misleading you.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's it, then I'll just steer clear of the US for the time being.



Where are you guys getting this invited stuff? If this is the case then the only one at guilt here is the daughter, as her actions resulted in the death of her "boyfriend" Father again based off the information we have acted in accordance with the law.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

I am just loving the repeating "the dad's evil because he owns/used a gun" tone of some people's argument in here 

I've held a gun, used one on a shooting range, only went twice, but i digress, I guess I'm an evil person.

it's also quite hilarious how people use "trigger-happy" and "gun-crazy" to describe _anyone_ who owns or has used a gun these days.


----------



## tari101190 (Mar 14, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I am just loving the repeating "the dad's evil because he owns/used a gun" tone of some people's argument in here
> 
> I've held a gun, used one on a shooting range, only went twice, but i digress, I guess I'm an evil person.
> 
> it's also quite hilarious how people use "trigger-happy" and "gun-crazy" to describe _anyone_ who owns or has used a gun these days.


No it's because he SHOT AND KILLED a 17 YEAR OLD BOY.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> No it's because he SHOT AND KILLED a 17 YEAR OLD BOY.



Had he been 18, would that have been more tolerable for you?

Considering he is legally an adult then.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> No it's because he SHOT AND KILLED a 17 YEAR OLD BOY.



Yes a boy who had no permission to be in the house, a boy in his daughters bed, daughter says she has no idea whom the boy is, the boy refuses to comply with orders from the father, boy even refuses to give his name, and what business he supposedly had with the daughter, the boy makes a sudden movement after explicitly being told not to move yeah... your being silly.

The only one wrong here would be the daughter *if* she in fact knew the boy and helped him sneak into the house and then denied knowing him leading the father to believe his child was in danger, thus allowing him to take legal action to defend himself and family. But hey I guess defending yourself is illegal in Europe?


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Yes a boy who had no permission to be in the house, a boy in his daughters bed, daughter says she has no idea whom the boy is, the boy refuses to comply with orders from the father, boy even refuses to give his name, and what business he supposedly had with the daughter, the boy makes a sudden movement after explicitly being told not to move yeah... your being silly.
> 
> The only one wrong here would be the daughter *if she in fact knew the boy and helped him sneak into the house* and then denied knowing him leading the father to believe his child was in danger, thus allowing him to take legal action to defend himself and family. But hey I guess defending yourself is illegal in Europe?



That was what really happened


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> That was what really happened



Source plox. And *if* that's the case the _daughter_ should be charged with manslaughter.

But as it stands, with the information we have the father acted in accordance with the law.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

^ The OP post:



			
				Opening Post Excerpt said:
			
		

> *The daughter later confessed that she did indeed know who the boy was and that she had let him into her bedroom on purpose.*



Mind you, if the man is alright but the daughter is charged with manslaughter, that actually works too.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> ^ The OP post:
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, if the man is alright but the daughter is charged with manslaughter, that actually works too.



Well then the fault lies *squarely* on the daughter. She lied to her father resulting him to take action to "protect" his daughter from a threat. Appalling behavior on the part of the daughter.

And now that I think about it this story sounds awfully familiar, was there a similar case posted a few years ago?


----------



## Fiona (Mar 14, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> and here he/she/it/sheit is, folks.
> 
> Your "Holier than Thou" member, descending from their imaginary pedestal to grace us all with their presence.



I literally laughed so hard that I nearly peed myself when I realized someone took me seriously when I posted that   

Do I really have to put Sarcasm Tags around my posts? 

My sides ...


----------



## kluang (Mar 14, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> No it's because he SHOT AND KILLED a 17 YEAR OLD BOY.



Who trespasses. He can blow the kid's brain out no matter the age. Be it 17, 5 or even 78


----------



## Ceria (Mar 14, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I knew you fucks would be in on this one saying dumb shit. Again the DAUGTHER LIED AND SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW HIM. The dad thought he was protecting her from most likely a rapist or some shit. If the stupid bitch wasn't trying to suck the kids dick in her room none of this would of happened.



Those two are in the wrong here, the guy shooting him was completely legitimate, even though the kid was probably reaching for a wallet to show identification, I doubt it was a weapon given the girl's later admittance. 

Dumb move on the part of both children here, this didn't need to happen.


----------



## navy (Mar 14, 2014)

kluang said:


> Thats not even the problem.  He's in another family house and in their daughter's room without entering from the front door. The father can shoot him for that.



Easy now. That isnt true at all.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 14, 2014)

This shit is retarded.

Someone else suggested that the father is trying to cover himself. I agree with that theory.


----------



## Joakim3 (Mar 14, 2014)

Like most people are saying if anything this Is going to be a self defense case on the grounds that the father had a justifiable reason to fire his weapon.

He did not know who the boy was, the boy was inside his home next to his daughter and the cherry on top with the daughter claiming she doesn't know him. Add all that up and you get a _very_ pissed off father with every legal right to take action (and he didn't even immediately start shooting) 

Honestly the daughter is a fucking idiot and should be charged with manslaughter for provoking the whole thing


----------



## Mathias124 (Mar 14, 2014)

The bitch should be tried for involuntary manslaughter.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Yes, the girl shouldn't have lied, but pretending that she has full responsibility for his death is stupid. The father chose to act the way he did, he's the one who chose to pull the trigger, not the daughter. He could've easily chosen otherwise.


----------



## CrimsonRex (Mar 14, 2014)

Zyrax said:


> America is such a wonderful country



I know, it's a pretty damn awesome place to live in. :ignoramus
Well, in the end, it's her fault for getting the guy killed.


----------



## dynasaur (Mar 14, 2014)

she shouldn't have lied to her father

and both the father and daughter should be punished


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Neurological said:


> That's who I meant, his daughter, not the boy.



Oh ok I see.



Nikushimi said:


> Isn't that what caused this whole mess in the first place?







Fiona said:


> Oh trust me I know.
> 
> I dont even bother anymore for the most part, only in cases like this where its cut and dry do I come in and post the correct view on the topic and move along.



Yeah because you post bullshit then don't respond to anyone who proves you wrong afterward. You said you weren't coming back so stop coming back.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yeah because you post bullshit then don't respond to anyone who proves you wrong afterward. You said you weren't coming back so stop coming back.



That's cuz she keeps making posts of feelings, emotions, and angst. As if that is supposed to travel through the cyberinterwebz and touch us with the feelz. This ain't Digimon.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Except no one's actually proven her wrong.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> That's cuz she keeps making posts of feelings, emotions, and angst. As if that is supposed to travel through the cyberinterwebz and touch us with the feelz. This ain't Digimon.




He gonna feel this...


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Except no one's actually proven her wrong.



Have you even read a page here?

Also, she didn't write anything to refute.

I don't like this cuz it hurts my heart isn't really something we can refute.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Except no one's actually proven her wrong.



STFU Freedan read the thread we have done so at least three times already.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> *This is all ignoring the fact that the guy had rights too! *If he was a genuine intruder it would've been fine, but revealing that she knew the guy? It automatically should become a crime. Taking another life when said life is proven innocent, before or after should be a crime.


You *do not *haverights when you are an intruder in *my home.* The man had *every reason to believe* that this kid was a "genuine intruder". It was late at night, in his under aged daughters room, he didn't identify himself when ordered, his daughter couldn't identify him either and finally *he was non-compliant with orders to stay  still.* It sure is a good thing people like you don't write our laws, you live in some fucked up fantasy world. You want to charge him retroactively for the crime of murder and put him away for 20+ years because the victim and his daughter were idiots and decided to lie/not listen to his commands in his own house? His actions were within full accordance with the law.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> STFU Freedan read the thread we have done so at least three times already.



Case in point.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

I have never understood this mentality that you can "Think someone is going to do something" and be justified in killing them. 

It should not matter what you "thought" or what you "believed" it only matters what is true. 

"I thought he was reaching for a weapon" 
Was there a weapon?
"No"

Then you were wrong and your going to jail for murder.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> You *do not *haverights when you are an intruder in *my home.* The man had *every reason to believe* that this kid was a "genuine intruder". It was late at night, in his under aged daughters room, he didn't identify himself when ordered, his daughter couldn't identify him either and finally *he was non-compliant with orders to stay  still.* It sure is a good thing people like you don't write our laws, you live in some fucked up fantasy world. You want to charge him retroactively for the crime of murder and put him away for 20+ years because the victim and his daughter were idiots and decided to lie/not listen to his commands in his own house? His actions were within full accordance with the law.



A person isn't really an intruder if they were invited in. Just because the father wasn't notified doesn't change the fact that he never broke in. Going by your logic, if I were to come home and find out my daughter invited her friends over for a sleepover without telling me, apparently I'm allowed to fill them all with bullets.

And I find the whole story pretty fishy because somehow the father believed her daughter when she said they "weren't in bed", when he caught them... IN BED. If the girl was truly being raped, I'd think she'd be screaming or crying for help, rather than just saying what's essentially the equivalent of "it's not what it looks like". I just figured that when people are caught having sex in bed, it usually means they're doing just that. I'm guessing for a lot of people in this thread, if they were to walk in on their SO having sex with another person, they'll instantly believe them if their cheating SO said "it's not what it looks like LOL, we're just naked wrestling."

This is the kind of thing that happens when we raise citizens and police officers to be insanely paranoid and to interpret the slightest wrong move as "reaching for a gun". It encourages people to panic, and focuses on escalation rather than de-escalation.


----------



## Black Superman (Mar 14, 2014)

Plague said:


> Yeah, this is going to be on her conscience for the rest of her life.



I doubt it.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> I have never understood this mentality that you can "Think someone is going to do something" and be justified in killing them.
> 
> It should not matter what you "thought" or what you "believed" it only matters what is true.
> 
> ...


So you're telling me that you believe a *private homeowner* should be *lawfully required* to *wait* for a *non-compliant* *intruder* to point a gun at his face* before* he is justified in opening fire? Are you nuts?



HolyHands said:


> *A person isn't really an intruder if they were invited in.* Just because the father wasn't notified doesn't change the fact that he never broke in. Going by your logic, if I were to come home and find out my daughter invited her friends over for a sleepover without telling me, apparently I'm allowed to fill them all with bullets.
> 
> And I find the whole story pretty fishy because somehow the father believed her daughter when she said they "weren't in bed", when he caught them... IN BED. If the girl was truly being raped, I'd think she'd be screaming or crying for help, rather than just saying what's essentially the equivalent of "it's not what it looks like". I just figured that when people are caught having sex in bed, it usually means they're doing just that. I'm guessing for a lot of people in this thread, if they were to walk in on their SO having sex with another person, they'll instantly believe them if their cheating SO said "it's not what it looks like LOL, we're just naked wrestling."
> 
> This is the kind of thing that happens when we raise citizens and police officers to be insanely paranoid and to interpret the slightest wrong move as "reaching for a gun". It encourages people to panic, and focuses on escalation rather than de-escalation.


I don't even have to read beyond here. He was an intruder the moment his daughter lied and said she did not know who he was.


----------



## Black Superman (Mar 14, 2014)

The minute that chick thew dude under the bus his life was in serious danger. The chick definitely has some blame on her head. But will she get any? Do females ever in cases like this?


----------



## Gunners (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> I have never understood this mentality that you can "Think someone is going to do something" and be justified in killing them.
> 
> It should not matter what you "thought" or what you "believed" it only matters what is true.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how people can so easily overlook the glaring issue with that approach. It is too easy for someone to lie in such a situation,  so people should perhaps consider whether it would be best to insert more objectivity into the defence of self defence.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> I don't even have to read beyond here. He was an intruder the moment his daughter lied and said she did not know who he was.



Explain the logic behind this. How does that make him an intruder? She effectively lied about him being an intruder. So how is he an intruder when the statement that he's an intruder is false? At what point did the lie become the truth?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Explain the logic behind this. How does that make him an intruder? She effectively lied about him being an intruder. So how is he an intruder when the statement that he's an intruder is false? At what point did the lie become the truth?



The moment she told her dad.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> The moment she told her dad.



No, because she told her father a lie. A lie is still a lie regardless of how her father chose to act on it. It doesn't change the truth that she let him in. So what gives?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> No, because she told her father a lie. A lie is still a lie regardless of how her father chose to act on it. It doesn't change the truth that she let him in. So what gives?



What gives is who side to take. your daughter, or some dude that you never seen before that's in bed with your daughter at 2 a.m.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> What gives is who side to take. your daughter, or some dude that you never seen before that's in bed with your daughter at 2 a.m.



So truth is relative then? You can deny facts based on the unsupported arguments of the party you favor, is that it? Even if said arguments are later proven false by that same party?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> No, because she told her father a lie. A lie is still a lie regardless of how her father chose to act on it. It doesn't change the truth that she let him in. So what gives?



What she told him was a lie, but what he heard was the truth and he acted on that truth.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> So truth is relative then? You can deny facts based on the unsupported arguments of the party you favor, is that it? Even if said arguments are later proven false by that same party?



Dad is woken up by his children reporting strange noise coming out of their sister's room. Dad arrives with gun to protect daughter. Dad asked daughter who is the man. Man refuses to acknowledge. Dad asked him to sit still. Man keeps reaching for something. Dad fires.

It's not a matter of denying facts, it's a matter of protecting your love ones. it's sad how it ended by the man had every right to protect him family from an intruder who would not announce himself.


----------



## Roman (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> What she told him was a lie, but what he heard was the truth and he acted on that truth.



And it was his responsibility to ascertain the truth for himself. There's a massive difference between trust and blind faith. Even if she said she doesn't know the guy, he caught them together in bed and there was obviously no sign of aggression on his part toward her. Regardless, the fact that her lie was brought to surface ought to change things. It should rescind his "self-defense" claim because the guy he killed was proven not to be an intruder the moment the daughter declared false testimony. The fact that he killed him thinking he's an intruder doesn't mean he was an intruder when he killed him. He just never was an intruder in the first place.



Hand Banana said:


> Dad is woken up by his children reporting strange noise coming out of their sister's room. Dad arrives with gun to protect daughter. Dad asked daughter who is the man. Man refuses to acknowledge. Dad asked him to sit still. Man keeps reaching for something. Dad fires.
> 
> It's not a matter of denying facts, it's a matter of protecting your love ones. it's sad how it ended by the man had every right to protect him family from an intruder who would not announce himself.



He went to reach for something, yes. The father assumed it was something dangerous and that was his mistake. That's the definition of "trigger-happy" if I ever saw it. As a father, he ought to have made sure her daughter needed to be protected from something in the first place after getting clear answers. Maybe the kid was too scared to give a proper reply especially when the dad charged in holding a gun at him.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> He went to reach for something, yes. The father assumed it was something dangerous and that was his mistake.



How was thinking strange noise coming out of your daughter's room at 2 a.m. is not something he should be alarmed about?




> That's the definition of "trigger-happy" if I ever saw it. As a father, he ought to have made sure her daughter needed to be protected from something in the first place after getting clear answers. Maybe the kid was too scared to give a proper reply especially when the dad charged in holding a gun at him.



trigger-happy:

1. Having a tendency or desire to shoot a firearm before adequately identifying the target.
2. Inclined to react violently at the slightest provocation.




> He had a gun in his hand at the time and asked the teenager to identify himself. *Neither of the kids seemed to cooperate as his daughter chose to say that she had no idea who the boy was.*
> *
> The confrontation led to gunfire after the boy made a move to grab something. The dad must have thought it might have been a weapon or he was just reacting because he fired shots and killed the teenager.*



Clearly you did not read the article. have a great day, Freedan.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> And it was his responsibility to ascertain the truth for himself. There's a massive difference between trust and blind faith. Even if she said she doesn't know the guy, he caught them together in bed and there was obviously no sign of aggression on his part toward her.



He did. You would know this if you had read the article. He asked the boy to identify himself. He did not. He asked the boy not to move. He did move. The boy looked to be reaching for something. The dad had done enough to ascertain the "truth".



Freedan said:


> Regardless, the fact that her lie was brought to surface ought to change things. It should rescind his "self-defense" claim because the guy he killed was proven not to be an intruder the moment the daughter declared false testimony.



You want us to punish him, after the fact? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? At the time, and not after the fact, he WAS an intruder. Had he shot the kid, even after identifying himself not to be a intruder, then this would have been a different story, but at the time he was an intruder and the dad acted accordingly after having asked him to identify himself and not to move.



Freedan said:


> The fact that he killed him thinking he's an intruder doesn't mean he was an intruder when he killed him. He just never was an intruder in the first place.



He was an intruder when he killed him. At that time he was.


----------



## navy (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Explain the logic behind this. How does that make him an intruder? She effectively lied about him being an intruder. So how is he an intruder when the statement that he's an intruder is false? At what point did the lie become the truth?



 Daughter lied. Kid died. I dont see how you can blame the dad if the events really transpired as claimed. 

That being said, I dont trust this story at all.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 14, 2014)

I'm a little surprised at how it all turned out so violently..I mean the dad didn't realise his daughter was growing up? Starting to explore sex and so on.. Just seemed utterly stupid to not connect the dots and see through his daughters lie like that.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Nightfall said:


> I'm a little surprised at how it all turned out so violently..I mean the dad didn't realise his daughter was growing up? Starting to explore sex and so on.. Just seemed utterly stupid to not connect the dots and see through his daughters lie like that.



You didn't read the article.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> So you're telling me that you believe a *private homeowner* should be *lawfully required* to *wait* for a *non-compliant* *intruder* to point a gun at his face* before* he is justified in opening fire? Are you nuts?


I didn't specify just a gun, I believe I said weapon. 

But yes, that is about the it. 
The only time you are justified in killing someone is to defend yourself. You don't get to kill them because they are trespassing. 

Until his life was in danger, (pointing a gun at his face) then he isn't justified in opening fire. 



Gunners said:


> I don't understand how people can so easily overlook the glaring issue with that approach. It is too easy for someone to lie in such a situation,  so people should perhaps consider whether it would be best to insert more objectivity into the defence of self defence.


Objectivity is definitely missing.


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 14, 2014)

Freedan said:


> He went to reach for something, yes. The father assumed it was something dangerous and that was his mistake. That's the definition of "trigger-happy" if I ever saw it.



Wow that's dumb.

"I don't know who you are, I've never seen you before, you're in my house unannounced, you're in bed with my daughter and she looks very concerned, she says she doesn't know you and yet she isn't screaming for help so she might be afraid for her life, you won't tell me who you are, you're reaching for something I can't see despite the fact that I told you not to move while brandishing a gun at you in plain sight...let me politely wait for you to explain yourself."

Nope.

Had this been an actual rapist or other person with violent intentions, the tragedy could've been of a very different nature.



> As a father, he ought to have made sure her daughter needed to be protected from something in the first place after getting clear answers. Maybe the kid was too scared to give a proper reply especially when the dad charged in holding a gun at him.



Maybe the kid shouldn't have sneaked into the house and then refused to identify himself when caught. Maybe the daughter shouldn't have lied about knowing who he was.

Maybe a lot of things should have happened differently, but they didn't, and the dad can't be faulted for that.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> You didn't read the article.



He did. It's just the father lacks some massive common sense if he thinks that teenagers would never invite someone over for sex, and that they wouldn't lie about it if caught.

And I honestly find the "he reached for something" to be BS. People in this thread keep asking "what would you do if you saw an unknown guy at 2am". Well here's a question for you people: what would YOU do if you were having sex with a girl and her father barged in with a gun pointed at your face and told you not to move. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't move an inch, yet we're supposed to believe that he was somehow moving in a such a way that implied he was going to grab a weapon. I mean seriously, if he was truly a criminal, he wouldn't reach for a weapon WHILE having a gun pointed at him. Even stupid criminals aren't that stupid.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> He did. It's just the father lacks some massive common sense if he thinks that teenagers would never invite someone over for sex, and that they wouldn't lie about it if caught.



It's not the sex that would bother him, but a stranger in his daughter bed who she just said he didn't know.



> And I honestly find the "he reached for something" to be BS. People in this thread keep asking "what would you do if you saw an unknown guy at 2am". Well here's a question for you people: what would YOU do if you were having sex with a girl and her father barged in with a gun pointed at your face and told you not to move. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't move an inch, yet we're supposed to believe that he was somehow moving in a such a way that implied he was going to grab a weapon. I mean seriously, if he was truly a criminal, he wouldn't reach for a weapon WHILE having a gun pointed at him. Even stupid criminals aren't that stupid.



I would announce who i was to not get shot?


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> I didn't specify just a gun, I believe I said weapon.
> 
> But yes, that is about the it.
> The only time you are justified in killing someone is to defend yourself. You don't get to kill them because they are trespassing.
> ...



If someone is trespassing *inside your house*, you pretty much have every right to shoot them. Especially if they've broken something to get in.

You have no idea why they're there; they could be looking to steal, rape, or even murder, and to even stop and ask them would put yourself (and any loved ones with you) in danger. And for what? Someone who shouldn't be there in the first place? I wouldn't recommend it.

This is why you don't just go wandering into people's homes; aside from being culturally and ethically inappropriate, it also creates a situation where someone feels threatened and you could end up dead.

That said, you should always know and be able to clearly see who/what you're shooting at, obviously.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> He did. It's just the father lacks some massive common sense if he thinks that teenagers would never invite someone over for sex, and that they wouldn't lie about it if caught.
> 
> And I honestly find the "he reached for something" to be BS. People in this thread keep asking "what would you do if you saw an unknown guy at 2am". Well here's a question for you people: what would YOU do if you were having sex with a girl and her father barged in with a gun pointed at your face and told you not to move. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't move an inch, yet we're supposed to believe that he was somehow moving in a such a way that implied he was going to grab a weapon. I mean seriously, if he was truly a criminal, he wouldn't reach for a weapon WHILE having a gun pointed at him. Even stupid criminals aren't that stupid.



You can go ahead make theory thread if you want. Just make sure the title is prefaced with [Theory].


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> It's not the sex that would bother him, but a stranger in his daughter bed who she just said he didn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> I would announce who i was to not get shot?



Unfortunately that wouldn't work since the daughter is claiming she doesn't know who he was, so you'll still get shot if you even so much as flinch.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 14, 2014)

> It all started when the father was told by one of his other children that they heard someone up in his 16-year-old daughter’s bedroom. He went to check it out and found the boy in bed with the girl. He had a gun in his hand at the time and asked the teenager to identify himself. Neither of the kids seemed to cooperate as his daughter chose to say that she had no idea who the boy was.


If arrested, he probably would get off if charged with murder.

A good lawyer could make the case of the father being under the impression that he's a trespasser and thus the  would apply.

That of course doesn't make it right or just but remember, this is Texas.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> Unfortunately that wouldn't work since the daughter is claiming she doesn't know who he was, so you'll still get shot if you even so much as flinch.



Except article stated he was shot when he was told to stop reaching for his pants. So...


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> I didn't specify just a gun, I believe I said weapon.
> 
> But yes, that is about the it.
> The only time you are justified in killing someone is to defend yourself. You don't get to kill them because they are trespassing.
> ...


My life and family are in danger the moment I find you wandering around in my house. Now you're telling me I have to give you a fair chance at killing me in my own home before I'm allowed to open fire? You realize by the time they are pointing a gun at me it could be too late for me? Why do I have to take your safety as a trespasser into consideration when you have zero regard for my own? If you don't want to end up in a situation where you might either have to kill or be killed then *simply don't enter my fucking house uninvited.* Are you *crazy?

*


HolyHands said:


> Even stupid criminals aren't that stupid.


Yes they are, that's the only reason why they'd break an entering in the first place.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> My life and family are in danger the moment I find you wandering around in my house. Now you're telling me I have to give you a fair chance at killing me in my own home before I'm allowed to open fire? You realize by the time they are pointing a gun at me it could be too late for me? Why do I have to take your safety as a trespasser into consideration when you have zero regard for my own? If you don't want to end up in a situation where you might either have to kill or be killed then *simply don't enter my fucking house uninvited.* Are you *crazy?
> 
> *Yes they are, that's the only reason why they'd break an entering in the first place.



Normally I would agree if the person showed obvious signs of a break in. For example, if my window was broken and I saw a man inside wearing a mask, then I would definitely whip out a gun. But two teenagers having sex? That opens up a large possibility that it's just a secret boyfriend, which he was. You're incredibly naive if you think no teenager ever tried to have sex behind their parents back.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 14, 2014)

Bioness said:


> Arrest the father, this is murder.
> 
> The daughter was stupid, but the father was even dumber.



Not murder, castle doctrine. You can shoot an intruder in your house and you might not even have to go to trial. Guess what. I know you people all have issues with your parents that are unresolved and shit, but this is the kind of thing that happens when you go behind your parent's back.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> Normally I would agree if the person showed obvious signs of a break in. For example, if my window was broken and I saw a man inside wearing a mask, then I would definitely whip out a gun. But two teenagers having sex? That opens up a large possibility that it's just a secret boyfriend, which he was. You're incredibly naive if you think no teenager ever tried to have sex behind their parents back.


I feel like I'm going in a circle with you now. He gave both the boy and his daughter an opportunity to identify him and diffuse the situation. He refused to comply and the daughter outright lied and said she had no idea who this strange man was.

Shattered glass all over the floor or a ski mask on the trespassers face isn't the established benchmark requisite that  must be met before reaching the conclusion that the person does not belong in your home. The fact that he was a stranger in his home at 2:20am and that his daughter could not identify him is reason enough. He's not at fault no matter which way you try and slice it.

You talk like he went in guns blazing.


----------



## Easley (Mar 14, 2014)

A minor incident turned deadly because she lied about knowing him. It was probably to avoid getting in trouble but she failed to consider the consequences, and inadvertently labeled the boy an intruder. 

It's easy for people to say what her father _should_ have done, with the benefit of hindsight. But in the heat of the moment things don't always go to plan, even if you're normally calm and rational. These kind of situations are unpredictable and anything can happen.

I'll assume that her dad didn't charge in guns blazing, so there was time to calm things down.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> I feel like I'm going in a circle with you now. He gave both the boy and his daughter an opportunity to identify him and diffuse the situation. He refused to comply and the daughter outright lied and said she had no idea who this strange man was.
> 
> Shattered glass all over the floor or a ski mask on the trespassers face isn't the established benchmark requisite that  must be met before reaching the conclusion that the person does not belong in your home. The fact that he was a stranger in his home at 2:20am and that his daughter could not identify him is reason enough. He's not at fault no matter which way you try and slice it.



And that's the problem right there, people are wanting someone to look for obvious signs of break in and the like, you don't have time to look for all of that shit in the moment. You're thinking about after the fact with all of this hind sight to guide you.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> My life and family are in danger the moment I find you wandering around in my house.


No, they are not. The person has to actually be a threat to put you in danger. 


Louis-954 said:


> Now you're telling me I have to give you a fair chance at killing me in my own home before I'm allowed to open fire?


Yes, I am saying that the person has to actually be a threat to you before you kill them. 



Louis-954 said:


> You realize by the time they are pointing a gun at me it could be too late for me?


If someone has a weapon that they go to point at you, then yes. You can shoot them. 
If they have a weapon, and you have a weapon pointed at their back, and you shoot them. Then no, not justified. 



Louis-954 said:


> Why do I have to take your safety as a trespasser into consideration when you have zero regard for my own?


Because you about kill someone. KILL, end their life. Remove them from existence. 

To be justified in this action you must show that there was NO OTHER OPTION!


Louis-954 said:


> If you don't want to end up in a situation where you might either have to kill or be killed then *simply don't enter my fucking house uninvited.* Are you *crazy?*


*
You don't get to kill people because they entered you house univited. 

Me crazy? No, I think your crazy. I think you complete and total lack of regard for other peoples lives borders on sociopathic. 

You seem to be fine with killing people who are no threat to you because they entered your home uninvited. I think it is madness. 



Nikushimi said:



			If someone is trespassing inside your house, you pretty much have every right to shoot them. Especially if they've broken something to get in.
		
Click to expand...

That is the law, but as I said I don't agree with it. 


Nikushimi said:



			You have no idea why they're there; they could be looking to steal, rape, or even murder, and to even stop and ask them would put yourself (and any loved ones with you) in danger. And for what? Someone who shouldn't be there in the first place? I wouldn't recommend it.
		
Click to expand...

For what? for not having killed someone. 

Is this really that hard a concept to grasp. Do you really feel no remorse in the fact that you could shoot some random neighbors child who was just playing around. 

Even if it was a robber come to steal you stero equipment, are you fine will killing them over that? 


Nikushimi said:



			This is why you don't just go wandering into people's homes; aside from being culturally and ethically inappropriate, it also creates a situation where someone feels threatened and you could end up dead.

That said, you should always know and be able to clearly see who/what you're shooting at, obviously.
		
Click to expand...

If someone isn't an immediate threat to you, aka (don't have a weapon or are not in the process of attacking you) you should not be justified in killing them.*


----------



## Bitch (Mar 14, 2014)

All I see in this thread are people arguing the same shit over and over.

If there is an intruder in your house, and he or she obviously means harm, then he or she should be shot.

But this story seems deliberately contrived by the father in what was most likely a crime of passion, and unfortunately we will never get the hear both sides.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

Bioness said:


> Arrest the father, this is murder.
> 
> The daughter was stupid, but the father was even dumber.



Why not? Had the guy been 18 or 20 , would it had been suddenly okay to shoot him?

It sounds to me another case of "Awwww teens, lets give them preferential treatment"

As far as the father knew the guy could have reached for a gun, the daughter said he did not know him.

I know the father exaggerated and overreacted, I wouldn't have done that, but I understand the father's worry.

Would it had been okay for you if the guy was 18+ or 20+ to shoot him?

Does the guy being a teen somehow warrants preferential treatment that no other person would get?

NOTE: The one at fault here was the girl not the guy or the father. However I am pointing out, so you can see the only reason a lot of people are condemning the father is because the guy happened to be a teen, and had it been an adult person everyone would side with the father, such attitude is ridiculous.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 14, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> Part of the story sounds like some bullshit some lawyer cooked up. Especially the part where the teenage boy was reaching for an unknown object? Why the fuck would he do that when someone is pointing a gun at you? He is a teenage boy who freaked out when his girlfriend dad caught them in the act.He is not a well seasoned criminal. Its a shame we won't know his side of the story.



Quoting myself. 

I didn't read the whole thread but I hope someone else noticed how fishy the story sounds.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Bitch said:


> All I see in this thread are people arguing the same shit over and over.
> 
> If there is an intruder in your house, and he or she obviously means harm, then he or she should be shot.
> 
> But this story seems deliberately contrived by the father in what was most likely a crime of passion, and unfortunately we will never get the hear both sides.



The daughter is a witness, so the case greatly depends on what she testifies. If she claims that the boy did not reach for any object, then her father is done. On the other hand, if the boy was indeed reaching for something, then the father has a stronger case, but it's still a little iffy since the girl's behavior didn't indicate she was in grave danger. I just find the "he was reaching for something" explanation to be a little too convenient since that's usually to go-to excuse for anyone who ever shoots someone.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> Quoting myself.
> 
> I didn't read the whole thread but I hope someone else noticed how fishy the story sounds.



We ignored it for a reason but I guess now we will tell you that we're ignoring it. Of course the story sounds fishy but we are arguing what is being shown. 



HolyHands said:


> The daughter is a witness, so the case greatly depends on what she testifies. If she claims that the boy did not reach for any object, then her father is done. On the other hand, if the boy was indeed reaching for something, then the father has a stronger case, but it's still a little iffy since the girl's behavior didn't indicate she was in grave danger. I just find the "he was reaching for something" explanation to be a little too convenient since that's usually to go-to excuse for anyone who ever shoots someone.




Not sure. Daughter lied to her father she can lie to a jury or lawyer... also joke time.


I guess we can agree this boy did not have protected sex.


----------



## Bitch (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> The daughter is a witness, so the case greatly depends on what she testifies. If she claims that the boy did not reach for any object, then her father is done. On the other hand, if the boy was indeed reaching for something, then the father has a stronger case, but it's still a little iffy since the girl's behavior didn't indicate she was in grave danger. I just find the "he was reaching for something" explanation to be a little too convenient since that's usually to go-to excuse for anyone who ever shoots someone.



It is very unlikely that the daughter will do anything other than defend her father.  She is not a reliable witness because she is his flesh and blood, and additionally seems to fear her father quite a bit (if what the article is saying is true and not a fabrication).


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 14, 2014)

If I were caught having sex with a girl by her father I'd be speechless and couldn't speak for like 1 minute or so . Imagine this but with a gun . Think like this: The boy couldn't talk . Let alone move himself .


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

ExoSkel said:


> This is Texas. The father won't be trialed for murder as his defense is basically shooting a stranger in his daughter's bedroom, teenager or not.



Which I find it perectly reasonable, why does the guy being a teenager would matter? The law should apply equally to everyone, if he would get released because he killed a 18+ person in the same circumstances I don't see why an exception should be made because the guy is a teen, do note TEENS ARE NOT KIDS (before someone pulls that card).


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> If I were caught having sex with a girl by her father I'd be speechless and couldn't speak for like 1 minute or so . Imagine this but with a gun . Think like this: The boy couldn't talk . Let alone move himself .



If he couldn't move himself he wouldn't have reached for his pants. That was not involuntary.


----------



## Bitch (Mar 14, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> Quoting myself.
> 
> I didn't read the whole thread but I hope someone else noticed how fishy the story sounds.



I also noticed.



Bitch said:


> I'm not saying the story is untrue, just that it is _EXTREMELY_ unlikely the events that took place happened exactly as the story said they did.
> 
> The article is poorly written and lacks many important details, but rape from strangers is extremely rare in comparison to rape from a known acquaintance.  It is ESPECIALLY rare that a random rapist would invade a home, let alone the home of an underaged girl who has dependents, just for the sake of rape.  Don't let movies/television/sensationalist stories fool you into thinking this scenario is at all common.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately there isn't much to go by seeing as the boy is dead and the father and daughter are the only remaining witnesses.  Unless the daughter balls up and reveals the truth, the father's likely fabrication will probably be his get-out-of-jail-free card.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

Fiona said:


> So the logical reaction is to immediately shoot the unarmed person to death?
> 
> You people can post all day trying to defend the father, but the simple truth is the father over-reacted and you all know it.
> 
> ...



Be honest with yourself, are you really condeming the father and being objective? Or are you only condemning him because the victim (of the girl) happened to have less than 18?

Would you support the father if the guy had 20+?

If the answer to this question is yes, then you are not thinking rationally and your argument is being led by emotion instead.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 14, 2014)

Daughter lying to save his father? Not sure. Let me check....



Hand Banana said:


> We ignored it for a reason but I guess now we will tell you that we're ignoring it. Of course the story sounds fishy but we are arguing what is being shown.



I know what you guys are arguing.I was just saying my piece about the event as described not the morality,rationality or law behind it

 If it was me then I don't know what I would have done myself in the heat of the moment (if the event actually played out like they described). I agree that we all have to be more careful when we are shooting someone. But the truth is even most experienced people on the battlefield makes mistakes,can't always keep their cool. You can't expect a normal citizen, a father to keep his when he sees an unknown boy in her daughter bedroom at 2 am at night whom his daughter doesn't know & allegedly was reaching for a weapon.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> The boy simply FREAKED . Like every other teenager would do . Some scream, some pass out, some just simply can't say a word . Do not try to put the blame on a guy who was shot dead because he panicked and couldn't say a word .



I don't get why being a teenager is an excuse to jail the father on circumstances he would not be jailed, teens are not kids. If you think the father would be right to shoot someone else who was not a teen in that situation, then he should as well be right to shoot the guy in this situation.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Bitch said:


> I'm not saying the story is untrue, just that it is _EXTREMELY_ unlikely the events that took place happened exactly as the story said they did.
> 
> The article is poorly written and lacks many important details, but rape from strangers is extremely rare in comparison to rape from a known acquaintance.  It is ESPECIALLY rare that a random rapist would invade a home, let alone the home of an underaged girl who has dependents, just for the sake of rape.  Don't let movies/television/sensationalist stories fool you into thinking this scenario is at all common.
> 
> ...



Bitch, ain't no one got time to read that.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> As far as the father knew the guy could have reached for a gun, the daughter said he did not know him.


Just a question here, why does it matter what the father believed at the time. Why does that take priority of reality.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Just a question here, why does it matter what the father believed at the time. Why does that take priority of reality.



Okay...... so if I find someone in my house with my daughter, my daughter claims to not know him, he doesn't cooperate and reach for someone that could or could not be a weapon, I am wrong for shooting rather than taking chances?

Okay not convinced enough? Lets imagine the guy is not a teen.

If my situation convince you I can shoot and the father couldn't choose, then you are using double standards.


----------



## Zeit (Mar 14, 2014)

Attempting to boil down the story and add a dash of common sense:

> Scumbag daughter sneaks boyfriend in for sex.

> Lunatic father enters room with gun catching both in bed, presumably after engaging in sexual acts or just about to.

> Lunatic demands to know what is going on. Lunatic is clearly intellectually deficient as he cannot make the simply leap of "two undressed young adults present in bedroom" to a situation which warrants a stern talking to scumbag daughter rather than Jack Bauer-tier escalation.  

> Boyfriend saying nothing because he is likely frightened silent by gun-wielding intellectually-deficient lunatic.

> Scumbag daughter states she has no idea who boyfriend is. Boyfriend shits himself to an even greater degree now that threat level has raised considerably. Fight or flight impulse likely kicks in, lunatic demands to know whether boyfriend "feels lucky".

> Boyfriend makes sudden movement, Dirty Harry's 357 magnum did indeed have one more round and boyfriend is killed. Lunatics heroism is presumably broken moments later when scumbag daughter comes to her senses and realises she has got an innocent party killed because she is a scumbag.

That sound about right? 

Father and daughter are equally culpable in this situation, the latter by being a complete cunt and having zero regard for her partner's safety and the former by having the mentality of an 80s action flick protagonist instead of a functioning human adult. Victim could be argued as having some minuscule responsibility given he apparently "provoked" the father into firing, but Jesus Christ is it that hard to believe a teenager might be a wee bit spooked when confronted by an armed man in a rage whose daughter then claims she has no idea who the victim is? Especially given he (the victim) might've been partially/fully disrobed at the time? Where exactly was he going to pull a weapon from, his arsehole? Contrary to popular belief teenage bravado is generally a veneer, especially when confronted by a much older male.

In reality I wouldn't be any bit surprised if it turned out the father walked in on the daughter and boyfriend and shot the boyfriend out of anger, fully aware of who he was and why he was there, then panicked and cooked up the whole story by threatening the daughter with equal culpability. At least that would demonstrate he wasn't completely naive, especially given he likely did exactly the same kind of shit when he was 17. 

Father of the victim should invite them both into his house to express his grief, if he ends up shooting them he can always say he had no idea who they were and they made sudden movements.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 14, 2014)

Dunno why father aimed to kill though. Should at least have sent a warning shot first imo.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Just a question here, why does it matter what the father believed at the time. Why does that take priority of reality.


He *lawfully *acted on what circumstances led him to perceive to be the truth at the time. You don't get to go back and charge a law abiding citizen with murder because the daughter came out and admitted she lied.



> mur?der
> ˈmərdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *murder*; plural noun: *murders*
> ...


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

adee said:


> Yes, your window is definitely more precious than a possibly innocent person's life :3



Windows are expensive. Especially around winter time. Naw, would have shot him in the leg or arm with perfect precision at 2 am.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 14, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Windows are expensive. Especially around winter time. Naw, would have shot him in the leg or arm with perfect precision at 2 am.



Make sure you don't hold the rifle sideways.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 14, 2014)

Seems criminally negligent manslaughter to me.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 14, 2014)

Moe said:


> Make sure you don't hold the rifle sideways.



Hold mine upside down like in Soul Eater.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 14, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Windows are expensive. Especially around winter time. Naw, would have shot him in the leg or arm with perfect precision at 2 am.


I know man, it's a toughie. Goose bumps vs splattering blood all over walls and your daughter. I'd def go for the latter


----------



## Zeit (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> He *lawfully *acted on what circumstances led him to perceive to be the truth at the time. You don't get to go back and charge a law abiding citizen with murder because the daughter came out and admitted she lied.



Plenty of scope however to charge the daughter, either with reckless endangerment or to go further and charge her with some form of manslaughter. She didn't pull the trigger but her actions (and inaction by not admitting she knew the victim and had let him in) directly lead to the killing.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Zeit said:


> Plenty of scope however to charge the daughter, either with reckless endangerment or to go further and charge her with some form of manslaughter. She didn't pull the trigger but her actions (and inaction by not admitting she knew the victim and had let him in) directly lead to the killing.


Absolutely; I agree that she should be charged with reckless manslaughter. An innocent teen is dead and her father has to live with the fact that he killed a child under a false pretense for the rest of his life. That's pretty heavy shit. She ruined a lot of lives.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Windows are expensive. Especially around winter time. Naw, would have shot him in the leg or arm with perfect precision at 2 am.



well my dear Banana, what you need to remember is that real life is exactly like Call of Duty: People have a crosshair in at least _one_ of their eyes, giving them near-perfect aim when using any weapon.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 14, 2014)

They should charge her with manslaughter, and I'd wait to see how quickly this story unfolds. I think people need to look at the situation logically; when hearing a noise from someone's room, when have you ever gone to their door with a lethal weapon? The noise could be explained by so many things, other than a person with lethal intent breaching your security, that one has to question why his mind jumped to that. 

There is also a recurring problem I'm seeing with people ( individuals like Louis), where the focus is placed on how they feel they should legally be able to act, and not whether or not it is necessary.

To kill the teen in that scenario, you would have to be a brainless oaf, or an unrestrained Neanderthal.


----------



## deathgod (Mar 14, 2014)

I'm not buying this dad justified shooting because he thought guy was a stranger and it was his house. From what I've read, the daughter wasn't screaming, the daughter wasn't trying to get away from the 'stranger' in bed with her when her father was there. Common sense should have told the dad, that his daughter knew the dude, even though she said she didn't know him. If you were a girl would you really stay in bed with this stranger if your dad's there holding a gun at him? No. You'd get the fuck out of bed and run to your dad.

Daughter was probablyy scared just as much as the dude for being caught, that's why she lied. Imagine when/if you were 16 and you got caught in that situation. It's easy to say now that the girl is a scumbag for lieing but a lot of us would try and lie our way out of that situation as well. I seriously doubt she thought her dad would shoot her bf. Ditto for the bf. He prolly never expected the dad to shoot, so was likely reaching for his pants/keys/phone/etc to get the fuck out of there.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Gunners said:


> They should charge her with manslaughter, and I'd wait to see how quickly this story unfolds. I think people need to look at the situation logically; when hearing a noise from someone's room, when have you ever gone to their door with a lethal weapon? The noise could be explained by so many things, other than a person with lethal intent breaching your security, that one has to question why his mind jumped to that.
> 
> There is also a recurring problem I'm seeing with people* ( individuals like Louis)*, where the focus is placed on how they feel they should legally be able to act, and not whether or not it is necessary.
> 
> To kill the teen in that scenario, you would have to be a brainless oaf, or a unrestrained Neanderthal.


Would rather have my gun and not need it than need it and not have it when it comes to the safety of my loved ones. It's as simple as that. Fault here does not fall to the father.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Mar 14, 2014)

adee said:


> Dunno why father aimed to kill though. Should at least have sent a warning shot first imo.



Did the article say how many shots were fired and where/how many times the kid was hit?

Also just cause you aim for the leg or a arm does not mean you hit said spot, the kid was moving after all.

Warning shots are for pussys.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

If someone is going to be charged it should be the daughter.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

Gunners said:


> They should charge her with manslaughter, and I'd wait to see how quickly this story unfolds. I think people need to look at the situation logically; _when hearing a noise from someone's room, when have you ever gone to their door with a lethal weapon?_ The noise could be explained by so many things, other than a person with lethal intent breaching your security, that one has to question why his mind jumped to that.



Just because you _have_ it doesn't mean you are going to have to _use_ it. Just because I have a knife in my hand doesn't mean I'm going to stab someone with it, just because I'm holding a chainsaw doesn't mean I'm going to eviscerate people with it, and just because I'm holding a gun, that doesn't mean I'm _going_ to shoot someone with it. 

But, as I've said before:

ITT: People implying that they _wouldn't_ shoot to kill in such a scenario, if given the option to.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Mar 14, 2014)

The daughter is crazy. 

The Dad had a gun which i assume was in his hands(aka his daughter saw it), and yet lies anyway. 

Yea she should get charged with something.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Just a few points. For some silly Europeans.

1. warning shots are ILLEGAL.

2. Someone whined about why what the father believed at the time is important. The answer is the testimony followed by evidence will show that the father acted in a just case of self defense. If you don't believe the person in your home is a threat you have no business using deadly force to get them out.

3. Aiming to shoot legs and arms is a movie stunt, not even trained snipers in government employe are taught to do such things, when you shoot, its to kill not wound.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> The daughter is crazy.
> 
> The Dad had a gun which i assume was in his hands(aka his daughter saw it), and yet lies anyway.
> 
> Yea she should get charged with something.



Accessory to [Something Something-or-Other] Manslaughter

or something.


----------



## navy (Mar 14, 2014)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> The daughter is crazy.
> 
> The Dad had a gun which i assume was in his hands(aka his daughter saw it), and yet lies anyway.
> 
> Yea she should get charged with something.



Why the story is sketchy. Then again she may have just been scarred.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> Okay...... so if I find someone in my house with my daughter, my daughter claims to not know him, he doesn't cooperate and reach for someone that could or could not be a weapon, I am wrong for shooting rather than taking chances?


yes. You are wrong for shooting someone without knowing what they are reaching for. 
You can take the chance that he was reaching for a weapon, but if you are wrong, and he didn't have a weapon that is all that matters. 



Orochibuto said:


> Okay not convinced enough? Lets imagine the guy is not a teen.


Even if he was *gasp* a black man. 
It's still wrong if he doesn't have a weapon. 



Orochibuto said:


> If my situation convince you I can shoot and the father couldn't choose, then you are using double standards.


You can't shoot in either one if he isn't putting your life in danger. (actually doing it, not just you thinking he is doing it)



Louis-954 said:


> He *lawfully *acted on what circumstances led him to perceive to be the truth at the time. You don't get to go back and charge a law abiding citizen with murder because the daughter came out and admitted she lied.



Once again, even if she didn't lie it was still wrong. The guy didn't have a weapon, he was not attacking the father, the father was not in danger.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

navy said:


> Why the story is sketchy. Then again she may have just been scarred.



I think it makes sense that she lied. She got caught doing something she wasn't supposed to and panicked, not realizing that it would get someone killed. Of course, this will make her liable for a manslaughter charge.


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Once again, even if she didn't lie it was still wrong. The guy didn't have a weapon, he was not attacking the father, the father was not in danger.


His daughter indicated that she was in danger when she said she didn't know who he was. A man has a duty and a right to protect his family and his property from perceived threats. He acted within the confines of the law which is why he's not in jail. He didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> yes. You are wrong for shooting someone without knowing what they are reaching for.
> You can take the chance that he was reaching for a weapon, but if you are wrong, and he didn't have a weapon that is all that matters.



Actually, no. What matters is the scenario that was ultimately set forth by the daughter, assuming the entirety of this story is true. 

Even _if_ an intruder in your house doesn't have a weapon, if you were to kill him/her, the law would be on your side still. "_Warrior's Honor_" only has a place in video games, movies, day time television, and anime; Not real life. Ain't nobody going to be questioning your decision in taking down an intruder in your home, armed or not.


----------



## navy (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> I think it makes sense that she lied.



No, it doesnt. Not if the Dad strolled in with a gun.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> His daughter indicated that she was in danger when she said she didn't know who he was. A man has a duty and a right to protect his family and his property from perceived threats. He acted within the confines of the law which is why he's not in jail. He didn't do anything wrong.


Except she didn't indicate she was in danger. She told her father she didn't know who he was; however, and this is of equal importance, she also told him he was not in her bed. The later statement isn't something a person would say if they were in danger, their mind would be on the fact that the person was in their room. 

Any jackass should have been able to come to the conclusion that they were screwing around, but we live in an era where common sense should be thrown to the side in the face of an individual's right to shoot someone down.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

Louis-954 said:


> His daughter indicated that she was in danger when she said she didn't know who he was. A man has a duty and a right to protect his family and his property from perceived threats. He acted within the confines of the law which is why he's not in jail. He didn't do anything wrong.


No she didn't. She didn't say she was in danger. He was not lunging or going for the daughter. 

The statement was that he thought the man was reaching for a weapon, he wasn't, there was no weapon, there was no threat. 



Yami Munesanzun said:


> Actually, no. What matters is the scenario that was ultimately set forth by the daughter, assuming the entirety of this story is true.


Why? Why does what people believe matter more than reality. The man was wrong. You should be protected because you were wrong. 


Yami Munesanzun said:


> Even _if_ an intruder in your house doesn't have a weapon, if you were to kill him/her, the law would be on your side still. "_Warrior's Honor_" only has a place in video games, movies, day time television, and anime; Not real life. Ain't nobody going to be questioning your decision in taking down an intruder in your home, armed or not.


I agree with you by law. 
But I don't agree with the law, and I don't understand the mentality. 

Why shouldn't you question them. Killing someone should be a last resort, a last final desperate act. 
Killing someone is not something that should be acceptable unless it is the ONLY option left.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 14, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> Why not? Had the guy been 18 or 20 , would it had been suddenly okay to shoot him?
> 
> It sounds to me another case of "Awwww teens, lets give them preferential treatment"
> 
> ...



Where did I mentioned, or most others mention the teenager fact? He could have been a 42 year old marriage police officer who has been having an affair with the girl and my opinion would still remain the same. However, you are right that there are many who have the perception that certain age groups are "okay to kill".

But whatever, not murder, but manslaughter.



adee said:


> Seems criminally negligent manslaughter to me.



I swear if fucking polygraph tests were usable in a court of law, Forget accuracy, there is no way this bullshit story is true.


----------



## Zeit (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> I think it makes sense that she lied. She got caught doing something she wasn't supposed to and panicked, not realizing that it would get someone killed. Of course, this will make her liable for a manslaughter charge.



In what way does it make sense for her to lie about not knowing the victim or how he gained entrance to the house/her room when her father has a gun? Hell even if he didn't have the gun openly on him when she originally lied what part of it makes sense for her to continue to lie rather than go "Oh fuck I'd better admit what's going on here before he uses that gun". The only reason for her to continue lying when he presented the weapon was if she thought he'd use it on her and/instead of the victim.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> Why? Why does what people believe matter more than reality. The man was wrong. You should be protected because you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's been explained in this thread before, but apparently it doesn't click with certain people. I _really_ don't want to repeat exactly what's been explained numerous times already.

_If_ the father is to be "charged" with anything, then let it be "Murder because of False Pretenses set forth by Daughter". And give him community service. 

I also get the feeling that if the guy had used anything other _than_ a gun, people wouldn't be anywhere near as condemning as they are right now, but that's just me.


----------



## Rawri (Mar 14, 2014)

I have a hard time believing the story of someone accused of manslaughter. Maybe he's speaking the truth, maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, he killed an innocent person. Arrest him.


----------



## MadmanRobz (Mar 14, 2014)

Polygraph tests are not considered valid evidence because *they are exceedingly unreliable.* A teenager under pressure would likely set it off regardless of whether or not they're lying, and a genuine psychopath would have no problems lying through their teeth all week long.



Rawri said:


> I have a hard time believing the story of someone accused of murder. Maybe he's speaking the truth, maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, he murdered an innocent person. Arrest him.


LOL. That claim makes so little logical sense that it's almost funny.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Rawri said:


> I have a hard time believing the story of someone accused of murder. Maybe he's speaking the truth, maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, he murdered an innocent person. Arrest him.



I don't think half you people understand the difference between murder and man slaughter...


----------



## Louis-954 (Mar 14, 2014)

Rawri said:


> I have a hard time believing the story of someone accused of murder. Maybe he's speaking the truth, maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, he murdered an innocent person. Arrest him.


I wish people who have no idea what the definition of the word 'murder' means would stop throwing the word around so carelessly.


----------



## Rawri (Mar 14, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I don't think half you people understand the difference between murder and man slaughter...



You are right. My english failed me. Should have said manslaughter. Wasn't aware it was even a word. My bad.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> No she didn't. She didn't say she was in danger. He was not lunging or going for the daughter.
> .


if you are a father. found some one in your daughter bed,
ask her and she said doesn't know her.
do you just
"okay... I'll go then..."

I know kill the intruder is excessive but it is not in US law, and the father have pretty much info to judge/call the someone as intruder and the fact she didn't know her make him react that way.

you guys should put your self as head of family and feel the need to protect your family.
even she didn't scream for help/saying no problem while she said she didn't know him make more suspicious and indicated that the man threaten the girl in some way


----------



## Garfield (Mar 14, 2014)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> Did the article say how many shots were fired and where/how many times the kid was hit?
> 
> Also just cause you aim for the leg or a arm does not mean you hit said spot, the kid was moving after all.
> 
> Warning shots are for pussys.





> The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire.



Bro, seriously 

And of course, one should rather kill than be called a pussy. That's the logical order of life.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Just because you _have_ it doesn't mean you are going to have to _use_ it. Just because I have a knife in my hand doesn't mean I'm going to stab someone with it, just because I'm holding a chainsaw doesn't mean I'm going to eviscerate people with it, and just because I'm holding a gun, that doesn't mean I'm _going_ to shoot someone with it.
> 
> But, as I've said before:
> 
> ITT: People implying that they _wouldn't_ shoot to kill in such a scenario, if given the option to.



The point is, my fellow Monster Girl fan, that the guy reached for something, who might or might not be a gun.

This is why I find it hard to really condemn the father shooting. It is basically a bet, the guy could not have a gun and you spare a life........ or the guy could be reaching for a weapon and now you have potentially yourself and your family killed.

It is a 50/50 thing and no matter what, the losing side is going to end up condemned and pointed at. Think about it, imagine if the news was, that a guy killed the entire family and that the father had a gun in his hand and he did not shooted and thus it gave the assasin enough time to pull his own gun and kill everyone.

Then we would have people saying "Stupid man, should have shot! Why do you doubt to shoot someone who entered to rape your daughter?!" (as suggested by her denying to know him and by him not cooperating)"

But he did shooted, the guy was not an assasin "The guy is a murderer! Should go to jail!"

The man can't just win, he had to took a bet based on incomplete information and whatever he choose, if he choose wrong he is going to end up in the bad side.

Now, could he have shot a warning shot? Possibly. Could he have shot a non lethal shot? I believe so.

But we don't know, we don't know how the events transpired, we don't know if the guy was slowly reaching for whatever he was going to get, or he hurriedly moved demanding an immediate response from the father, we don't know.

It is unfortunate yes, but I think the father is just as much as a victim as the guy, if someone is to blame is the daughter.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 14, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I don't think half you people understand the difference between murder and man slaughter...



_Murder_


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Bioness said:


> _Murder_



Is that Spongebob? WTF? lol


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

Bioness said:


> _Murder_



_I can almost taaaaste iiiit_


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> yes. You are wrong for shooting someone without knowing what they are reaching for.
> You can take the chance that he was reaching for a weapon, but if you are wrong, and he didn't have a weapon that is all that matters.



And I can as well not take the chance assuming he was not reaching for a weapon, but if I am wrong and he did have a weapon that is all that matters too, because it may be enough for him to kill me and my daughter.

You are basically admitting that the guy was taking a bet and he should be punished because he got the bet wrong, that sounds very unfair to me.

Imagine I put you in a room and a weapon, then I give you clues, hints, etc. that basically say "The guy that will come through this door may be a killer, who may or may not shoot you at any second before you have time to react."

And basically I tell you this:

"Okay, a guy is going to come through the door, you have to choose between killing him and be wrong and go to jail or not kill him and be wrong and get yourself killed."

Basically here you are saying that a court shouold convict him, because he took a wrong choice based on falsified information (your daughter does not know the guy) under the premise that his life and entire family was in danger, that sounds extremelly unfair to me.


----------



## Babby (Mar 14, 2014)

Houston, we have a retard.


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (Mar 14, 2014)

He was holding a gun.  He was pissed.  She didn't want to tell him a guy was in her bed, and thus make him more pissed.  Why didn't he as a father see that?  Instead, he just killed someone.


----------



## thewalkindude (Mar 14, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> It is unfortunate yes, but I think the father is just as much as a victim as the guy, if someone is to blame is the daughter.



Unbelievable.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Just a few points. For some silly Europeans.
> 
> 1. warning shots are ILLEGAL.
> 
> ...



Forgot the fourth and most important one.

4. Someone is at fault for the boy's dead, but it's not the Father. It's the daughter. That, and it isn't murder, but manslaughter (you don't hear that word frequently outside the US, so it makes sense not everyone gets it).



adee said:


> Bro, seriously
> 
> And of course, one should rather kill than be called a pussy. That's the logical order of life.



That's how real life and much of the Internet works, sadly.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 14, 2014)

It's only manslaughter if it's an accidental kill.  Killing somebody in the heat of the moment, such as say catching a kid fucking your daughter?  That's murder 2.


----------



## teddy (Mar 14, 2014)

navy said:


> No, it doesnt. Not if the Dad strolled in with a gun.



This. did she think the father would shoot her if she said yes?


results are tragic, but the story is sketchy


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

*Spoiler*: __ 








Gunners, if you think I am an idiot for not condeming the man, or more disturbing enough...... for not wanting to afford teens special rights over the rest of the population, why don't you just make your argument and dare to actually say it in public, where you actually get banned for insulting, instead of trying to hide behind the anonimity of a neg.

The fact that you have to resort to insulting shows really how weak whatever argument you may have is, worse is to having to resort to rage neg and not even caring to debate why you disagree, which by the way insults are completely unecessary for that.

"You are an idiot" wow, how compelling of an argument you made, it is backed by so much debate, facts and logics. Not to mention that you must surely have clinical tests of my IQ and neurological system to be able to make such a claim about my intelligence.




thewalkindude said:


> Unbelievable.



We can disagree if the dad was or not a victim. What you can't deny is that the girl was the one who had the most fault for what happened.

Do note I don't meant to say "Hey, what the dad this was A-OK!" of course not, it was terrible and IN HINDSIGHT (meaning knowing the full information of the event) he shouldn't have shot.

But the dad was basically forced into a choice where no matter what he did, if he got it wrong then he is fucked for life. Something that could had been prevented if his daughter did not said she didnt' knew the guy. That is what I mean when I say the guy is a victim, not in the same way as the killed guy who obviously was the true victim, but in the way of being faced in that situation.

The daughter is the one who has clearly the biggest fault here. And no "SHE IS A TEEN!" is not an excuse, at all.


----------



## teddy (Mar 14, 2014)

Spoiler tag that plz


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 14, 2014)

The father should go straight to prison. Kids lie, he's a parent and he should know she didn't want to fess up. Shooting someone dead, jesus christ what an asshole.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 14, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> blah
> 
> blah
> 
> blah


nothing of substance that deals with any of my arguments.



wibisana said:


> if you are a father. found some one in your daughter bed,
> ask her and she said doesn't know her.
> do you just
> "okay... I'll go then..."


yep, I tell them to get the fuck out. then call the police. 



wibisana said:


> I know kill the intruder is excessive but it is not in US law, and the father have pretty much info to judge/call the someone as intruder and the fact she didn't know her make him react that way.


yes, it is excessive, and I am not arguing law, but what the law should be. 
You are correct by law. 


wibisana said:


> you guys should put your self as head of family and feel the need to protect your family.
> even she didn't scream for help/saying no problem while she said she didn't know him make more suspicious and indicated that the man threaten the girl in some way


even as head of the family, I don't kill someone who isn't putting me or my family in mortal danger.



Orochibuto said:


> And I can as well not take the chance assuming he was not reaching for a weapon, but if I am wrong and he did have a weapon that is all that matters too, because it may be enough for him to kill me and my daughter.


Then you will go jail with the knowledge that you got it wrong. 



Orochibuto said:


> You are basically admitting that the guy was taking a bet and he should be punished because he got the bet wrong, that sounds very unfair to me.


Yep, you shouldn't bet on people's lives. 
I don't think it sounds unfair. I don't think that you should gamble with the lives of people in your community. 



Orochibuto said:


> Imagine I put you in a room and a weapon, then I give you clues, hints, etc. that basically say "The guy that will come through this door may be a killer, who may or may not shoot you at any second before you have time to react."
> 
> And basically I tell you this:
> 
> ...


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He shot a man guessing that he was a threat. You shouldn't shoot because of a guess. 

I could be walking down any street in America and the person in front of me pulls a gun and shoots me. That doesn't give me the right to mow down anyone who looks at me cross-eyed.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> The father should go straight to prison. Kids lie, he's a parent and he should know she didn't want to fess up. Shooting someone dead, jesus christ what an asshole.



He killed a dangerous,  unidentified intruder. 

You don't live in candy land, any unidentified, uninvited person in your house is a danger to you and your family.

But hey, rape never happens and all intruders are cool and compassionate people.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> nothing of substance that deals with any of my arguments.
> 
> 
> yep, I tell them to get the fuck out. then call the police.
> ...



He's in he's in YOUR house. You don't know him and your daughter is frightened and doesn't know him.

How is that even remotely similar to walking down a public street?

She lied, well too bad people are not lie detectors,  her lie caused a man to protect his family. The kid died, yeah sad, but that father was completely in the right. There is no gray area for his actions.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 14, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> nothing of substance that deals with any of my arguments.



the entirety of this thread deals with your argument; so - as was implied previously - I don't need to repeat what's been said several times already in response to your argument, assuming you've actually read those posts. 

but, you know, feel free to be snarky.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> The father should go straight to prison. Kids lie, he's a parent and he should know she didn't want to fess up. Shooting someone dead, jesus christ what an asshole.



The one that should go to prison is the daughter. And TEENS ARE NOT KIDS, unless we are talking about 13-14, they shouldn't be given right or more weigh under the law than a normal person. If someone 18+ would be jailed for lying as the daughter did, then so should her.

That being said, the problen Ennoea is that if you look past the "angry asshole" thing, which by the way is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, you can place yourself in the dad's shoes.

You will then understand how unfair it was for him to even be faced in that situation, at all, because of his daughter.

Here we have a man who sees a guy in his daughter's room, the daughter naked DENY KNOWING HIM, not to mention the guy did not cooperated at all and moved when asked not to, add to this the fact that whatever the situation any dad will be F-ing pissed at someone screwing her daughter let alone seeing it, and they were not making things easier for him.

Now I know the guy (and maybe he was) will look as stupid and impulsive, it is easy to see it in hindsight from a distant perspective...... would it be so in the heat of the moment? Possibly no.

The situation we have here is a man who is already pissed and has incomplete information or actually falsified information about an event he is facing, said event could mean having a rapist in his house with a weapon ready to fire, as said guy after not identifying himself is reaching for something without listening to warnings.

The man is faced with 2 choices:

- Do not shoot and allow the guy to get whatever he is reaching, if he is wrong everyone in the house could be killed by him, people will condemn him for being a coward 
- Shoot him before he can react, if he is wrong then he has killed an innocent man. People will condemn him for being a killer.

The father, can't really make a judgement with 100% certainty of what is happening, he is basically thanks to the falsified information provided by the daughter and the guy's refusal to cooperate (guess because "He is just a teen" he is allowed to play the "I was too scared to react propetly" card, but the dad doesn't......) forced to play a bet between 2 choices he can't get wrong or he is permanently screwed.

He is basically being forced to play Russian Roulette, worse is that if he has any of the 2 outcomes wrong he is not only going to be screwed permanently, but society will condemn him, unless he guess right. Something which could had been prevented if the daughter did not backstabbed her boyfriend.

To put an analogy, imagine you are placed in a room and a guy will enter through a door without listening to anything you say or cooperate, you are given insufficient or actually falsified information on the situation so you can't know if the guy is going to kill you or not. You are given a gun and you can shoot him or not. You are essentialy being forced into having to guess which scenario is true, also you are said that if you kill the guy and it turns out he isn't a killer, you are going to be condemned and charged as a murderer.

Imagine you get it wrong and you kill the guy, on top of having to live with having killed a guy and facing charges, you as well see people commenting how you are a murderer, as if you could have done better and had control over the situation knowing the facts.

Does this situation sounds fair to you? It was practically the same situation the guy was forced in by his daughter.

Of course...... I am not even going to bother to mention the situation of the poor boyfriend....... who had it worse of them all......... backstabbed by his girlfriend in his face and then killed.


----------



## Hitou Nami (Mar 14, 2014)

just pointing out, poor america, so frightend to protect its self  of everything, that someday it will fall and burn in flammes.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

Hitou Nami said:


> just pointing out, poor america, so frightend to protect its self  of everything, that someday it will fall and burn in flammes.



Someone breaks into your house and you... do what exactly?


----------



## Dokiz1 (Mar 14, 2014)

Call the police. 

But I agree they're not that reliable though in America. So its just better to kill and be done with it.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

Dokiz1 said:


> Call the police.
> 
> But I agree they're not that reliable though in America. So its just better to kill and be done with it.



You call the police and never go upstairs. Your daughter just got raped.

Want to try again?


----------



## Dokiz1 (Mar 14, 2014)

She got raped so much that she didn't bother to yell or anything, makes sense.


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (Mar 14, 2014)

> for not wanting to afford teens special rights over the rest of the population,



Teens are afforded special rights over the rest of the population.  There's a whole judicial system based on just that.  There's a reason they forgive some crimes committed before you turn 18. In your teens your brain is still developing and you're still learning. In the same vein of obviousness he should of used occam's razor.  There's a guy in the same room as my daughter.  He's the same age.  He's attractive (probably).  What is the most likely happening in this situation?  His daughter is fooling around.

Let's use Occam's Razor again.  He walks into the room with a gun.  His daughter has a guy in her room.  Her father is most likely pissed off.  She does not know, or even expect her father to shoot him.  She does however know her father will be furious with her (or at least thinks so) if he finds another guy in her bed.  Is she going to be honest in this situation.  No, She's going to lie. 

I agree with the neg, Orochibuto.  For your argument to be justified the following scenario would have to be plausible as the above.  A teenage ninja rapist killer comes into his daughter's room.  The teenage ninja rapist is heard by the younger children.  Super hero father comes to save the day with his gun and is lauded by his daughter as a hero when he kills the teenage ninja.

I mean really? I'm not sure why you think he's justified in any way.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

Dokiz1 said:


> She got raped so much that she didn't bother to yell or anything, makes sense.



Girl in my town got raped in her own home with her parents asleep up stairs. A friend of the family was staying at their house for a few days with his kids, threatened to kill her. She never screamed or yelled and the parents only found out a week later. Behold, the power of fear.
Here's a link to the story.


Now lets play.

You enter the bed room with the phone in your hand. The scenario plays out and he reaches for something. You call the police, he pulls a gun.

Now you're family is dead.

Want to try again? What are you willing to risk?


----------



## weshes195 (Mar 14, 2014)

Idiot girl. What the f#ck was she thinking saying she didn't know this boy who was in her bed? God, she must be the biggest idiot.

I feel sorry for the father. The boy should have immediately put his hands on his head and stayed still. 

I don't understand why he snuck in? Couldn't he just enter the house normally? Or couldn't the daughter tell her family she was seeing someone? Just...idiots.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 14, 2014)

Everyone still seems to be doing the "I'd have done it differently in his situation." thing.

Okay, so if a situation like that does happen, I hope you can live up to those words.


----------



## Dokiz1 (Mar 14, 2014)

Father was an idiot as much as his daughter. Believe me, if the guy was dangerous, she wouldn't have just said ''Uh, I DUN KNO HIM.'' Easy to put two on two there.



Noways said:


> Now lets play.
> 
> You enter the bed room with the phone in your hand. The scenario plays out and he reaches for something. You call the police, he pulls a gun.
> 
> ...



Except that he didn't have gun? Well, kill him of course. Because I can. Apparently.

Let's play, indeed.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> Everyone still seems to be doing the "I'd have done it differently in his situation." thing.
> 
> Okay, so if a situation like that does happen, I hope you can live up to those words.



Teens being caught having sex isn't exactly a novel thing, and they usually don't end in death. The only issue here is that we have a dumbass father who believed an obvious lie and a panicky daughter who threw a guy under the bus to save her own skin.


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 14, 2014)

HolyHands said:


> Teens being caught having sex isn't exactly a novel thing, and they usually don't end in death. The only issue here is that we have a dumbass father who believed an obvious lie and a panicky daughter who threw a guy under the bus to save her own skin.



And the guy refusing to cooperate, AT ALL.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Sadly we seem to have people here whom seem to have trust issues in their families...

If I found someone in my house and a member of MY family told me that they had no idea whom they were I would have no cause to doubt their word what so ever, no questions asked.


----------



## HolyHands (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Sadly we seem to have people here whom seem to have trust issues in their families...
> 
> If I found someone in my house and a member of MY family told me that they had no idea whom they were I would have no cause to doubt their word what so ever, no questions asked.



The fact that the girl was sneaking a boy in to have sex behind her father's back should make it pretty obvious that their family is not like yours.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

That does not change the fact that given the information the father had to act on that he made the correct choice to defend his family.


----------



## Dokiz1 (Mar 14, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Sadly we seem to have people here whom seem to have trust issues in their families...
> 
> If I found someone in my house and a member of MY family told me that they had no idea whom they were I would have no cause to doubt their word what so ever, no questions asked.



Good to know kids in your family never do shit behind the parents back unlike 95% of the families out there.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 14, 2014)

Doing shit behind a parents back, is different that denying to their face, when they have a gun in their hand that you have no idea who this "uninvited" person is. Especially more so when we have have people saying they saw him climb in through the window.


----------



## Noways (Mar 14, 2014)

Dokiz1 said:


> Father was an idiot as much as his daughter. Believe me, if the guy was dangerous, she wouldn't have just said ''Uh, I DUN KNO HIM.'' Easy to put two on two there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't know he doesn't have a gun. Him having a weapon is the only other scenario of what he was grabbing for. He already broke into your home. 

You're in the fathers shoes. You chose a phone instead of the handgun,  your daughter denied knowing this guy in her bed, in your house. You don't know him.

You will lose every time, because by your daughters word he broke into your home and assaulted your daughter, it has now turned into a worst case scenario.

You don't know why your daughter didn't scream, she could be threatened. You don't know what he's reaching for.

Your response could mean the life or death of your entire family. Are you still willing to gamble on what he's reaching for?

Remeber, this didn't have over several minutes,  this all happened in a handful of seconds.


----------



## Veggie (Mar 14, 2014)

This is fucked up for the damn Kid, I understand the father's concern but I would also question my naked daughter that I might have found willingly sucking the guy's dick.
I mean come on, I didn't read in the OP that is was reported that the guy had her pinned down or forcing her the moment the father found them. 

Although the kid also made a big mistake, when someone with a gun, specially a father asks you to identify yourself and not move you should comply for your own sake. I mean the dad must have been boiling at that point. 

This is one big tragedy, damn... And the daughter is a total bitch for denying knowing the guy.

The one to blame the most is the daughter Imo.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 15, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Just a few points. For some silly Europeans.
> 
> 1. warning shots are ILLEGAL.
> 
> ...



1. So is killing someone. 

3. He could have shot at the ceiling.

I don't get how the hell the daughter is to be blamed here. You mean to tell me she should have considered the fact that her boyfriend could be _killed_ before inviting her home unknown to her family? I'm sorry but that's just not normal behavior on the part of the parent.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Killing someone in your house that is uninvited isn't illegal here. He asked her if she knew the person and she lied. 

Why would I shoot into my ceiling when it's legal to shoot into them.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 15, 2014)

It seems fucked up to me that one has to think twice about shooting into the ceiling before shooting someone who you don't _know_ is dangerous. Sorry, but that's just wrong.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

adee said:


> It seems fucked up to me that one has to think twice about shooting into the ceiling before shooting someone who you don't _know_ is dangerous. Sorry, but that's just wrong.



Shit, I shoot people in my house as a test sometimes. Of course the test usually ends in a lot of bleeding and a "I'm sorry I shot you" Hallmark card.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 15, 2014)

Didn't we end this already by saying the guilt's on the daughter?


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

Such a tragic event, the outcome would have been completely different if the daughter or boy would have not trying to cover their asses. Instead the daughter was worried about punishment from her father and the kid was probably scared shitless.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Such a tragic event, the outcome would have been completely different if the daughter or boy would have not trying to cover their asses. Instead the daughter was worried about punishment from her father and the kid was probably scared shitless.



Her punishment is going to be finding a new boyfriend.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Her punishment is going to be finding a new boyfriend.



"Now daddy I don't want you shooting this one like last time".


----------



## Revolution (Mar 15, 2014)

*@ adee*  The dad obviously thought the boy was *raping* his daughter.

His daughter was too cowardly to admit she was sneaking a boy into the house to have sex.

So he died.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 15, 2014)

Sarahmint said:


> *@ adee*  The dad obviously thought the boy was *raping* his daughter.
> 
> His daughter was too cowardly to admit she was sneaking a boy into the house to have sex.
> 
> So he died.





> His daughter reportedly told her father that she did not know the teen and that the *two were not in bed*.


right.......


----------



## Grimm6Jack (Mar 15, 2014)

Dad's action was pretty understandable... But he could've at least try to aim for his legs 



Yami Munesanzun said:


> Just a thought, humor me, people:
> 
> Same scenario, but instead of the shooter being the girl's father, it was the girl's mother.
> 
> Aaaaaaand....Go.



Kinda late into this but:

Well played ...


----------



## MadmanRobz (Mar 15, 2014)

Can't we all just agree that both father and daughter fucked up in the heat of the moment and made a mistake that had unfortunate consequences?
I don't think punishing either of them would really have any purpose. Both of their actions are understandable, and it's not like they'll turn into hard core criminals if left unchecked or anything. Unfortunate shit happened, and that's that.


----------



## Jeroen (Mar 15, 2014)

> Daughter having sex in her bedroom without her parents knowing

I'm shocked by this. No really... I am. Lol.

> other kids mention hearing weird noises
> dad comes barging in with a gun

My first thought was "why the fuck did he bring his gun...".

> asks daughter who the guy is
> daughter says she doesn't know

Idiotic daughter is idiotic.

> dad believes her

She said she doesn't know, yet doesn't start screaming the boy is raping her or whatever...
Dad believes her...
Idiotic father is even more idiotic than the daughter. I'm guessing we know where she got the idiotic from.
Idiotic father with a gun, excellent combination.

> boy moves

He's lying in bed naked and just got busted by the father... I'm going with him trying to get his clothes and getting the hell out.

> dad shoots him

Idiotic dad doing an idiotic thing. I'd say I'm surprised, but then I'd be lying.
Idiots gonna idiot.

R.I.P boy.
Dad can go to jail for murder.

Let this be a lesson to boys everywhere.
Girls that are idiotic may be easy to get laid with, but they get their idiocy from somewhere. So don't be surprised if that idiocy comes back to bite you in the ass... or kill you.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

The kids mentioned that there was someone else in the room above, not just that they heard weired noises. You are also missing a step where he was told not to move but did it anyways in a fashion that made him seem a threat.



> Can't we all just agree that both father and daughter fucked up in the heat of the moment and made a mistake that had unfortunate consequences?



The Father acted rationally based on the situation, his kids told him someone else was in his daughters room, brings a weapon for worst case scenario, catches his daughter and some unknown man having sex, he asks his daughter who he was and she said she didn't know he was, the other man was obviously not responding at this point. Father tells the man not to move, but the man goes to reach for something anyways, Father has no choice but to act at what seems a clear sign of aggression.

Could have been completely avoided with better communication on the couples part, in my eyes no person is at fault.


----------



## Jαmes (Mar 15, 2014)

lol it appears dumb begets dumb.


----------



## Jeroen (Mar 15, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> The kids mentioned that there was someone else in the room above, not just that they heard weird noises.



You're right, doesn't change anything, though.



> You are also missing a step where he was told not to move



Irrelevant things are fairly irrelevant.



> but did it anyways in a fashion that made him seem a threat.



Only in the minds of retards.

Only in their mind....


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

Mr. Waffles said:


> You're right, doesn't change anything, though.


 Kinda does, explains why he brought a gun.




> Irrelevant things are fairly irrelevant.



Completely relevant, the guy was told not to move. Instead of communicating with the father that he isn't some rapist, he defies his demand and makes himself seem as a threat.




> Only in the minds of retards.
> 
> Only in their mind....



What? I can't dignify this with a proper response. The man was told not to move, instead of heeding the warning, he decided to try and grab something. Thats a clear sign of aggression, even if the girl said she who the guy was, though in that scenario I doubt it would have ended with the father shooting the guy.


----------



## Jαmes (Mar 15, 2014)

the most to blame there was the daughter. if she had just outright said she knew the guy and that no one was raping anybody she'd be in a different mess that does not involve a dead naked boy.


----------



## Jαmes (Mar 15, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Kinda does, explains why he brought a gun.



the fact that he brought a gun isn't in contention. 



> Completely relevant, the guy was told not to move. Instead of communicating with the father that he isn't some rapist, he defies his demand and makes himself seem as a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



don't assume the boy's action was one of aggression. it could have been anything, maybe a quick escape, a dart for his clothes, or a move to at least hide himself. if anything it's anything but clear. 

there was nothing conclusive that warranted shooting the kid. the dad made a stupid decision on impulse. the daughter made a stupid decision on lying. the boy's blood is equally on their hands.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 15, 2014)

So now we're blaming 16 year olds for being immature. 

Wow...


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

Jαmes said:


> the fact that he brought a gun isn't in contention.





> My first thought was "why the fuck did he bring his gun...".



Mostly response to that.



> don't assume the boy's action was one of aggression. it could have been anything, maybe a quick escape, a dart for his clothes, or a move to at least hide himself. if anything it's anything but clear.
> 
> there was nothing conclusive that warranted shooting the kid. the dad made a stupid decision on impulse. the daughter made a stupid decision on lying. the boy's blood is equally on their hands.



I'm not saying he was acting in aggression, I'm saying thats what it looked like. You can't standby during situations like these, if you don't act you are putting your life and loved ones at risk, the Father gave plenty of warning when he told him not to move.

You can't pin the blame on anyone, you had frightened teenagers and a father who was looking out for the welfare of his family.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 15, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You should take note of the fact that I only called you an idiot. You were the only person in this thread stupid enough to miss the point of people's argument, and go off on a tangent about how people feel teenagers should be treated differently. That displayed an inability to follow a conversation and respond accordingly. 

Your previous thread was also a factor in my decision to neg you. Something along the lines of ''Should there be a right to have sex''. Some days people's stupidity can be chalked up to them being off of the mark, so it is easy to overlook; however, you have shown that you are consistently stupid.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 15, 2014)

the kid break the law by banging underage (though he is underage too but it still break the law, and sorry if they didn't actually have sex because it wasn't mentioned the I just assume that happened).
and he was initially considered by the father as intruder (since the daughter said she didn't know him).

the dad did not break the law since the law allow it (shoot intruder).

why the hell this be debated. the law is clear.
regardless the story sketchy or not, that need to be proven.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Jαmes said:


> the fact that he brought a gun isn't in contention.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh grow the fuck up. If someone has a gun aimed at you and you start moving they're going to assume it's an act of aggressive reaction unless you put your hands up or say something like I'm reaching for my wallet and do so slowly. 

I'm not sure why the cafe seems to think that an unidentified person in your house near your daughter that she claims not to know should be given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Zeit (Mar 15, 2014)

Can all of you arguing the father did no ethical/moral wrong (seeing as we've established he isn't criminally wrong) put yourself in the situation of the victim for a second here. How exactly do you react in moments to going from having sex with a girl your own age to staring down the barrel of her father's gun? You partner then tells her father she has no idea who you are or how you got in and thus obviously you're there to rape her (a crime that is often considered worse than murder). 

How exactly do you react in this situation where your body is not only processing all the adrenaline from you either having sex or just about to, to this new adrenaline from the situation where you might lose your life? You're 17, not fully mentally mature in the eyes of the state or most experienced adults looking back on their own teenage shenanigans. You're also likely partially or fully naked, therefore feeling even more vulnerable than you would be fully clothed. Again, how do you respond? More importantly can you be expected to respond completely rationally to a situation that is completely irrational and likely taking place in a very short space of time?

(This is in response to the argument those of us saying the father should've reacted in a more controlled, logical manner to coming upon this situation is unrealistic but apparently expecting a teenager to act in a controlled logical manner in the above situation is completely rational and realistic.)



wibisana said:


> you guys should put your self as head of family and feel the need to protect your family.
> even she didn't scream for help/saying no problem while she said she didn't know him make more suspicious and indicated that the man threaten the girl in some way



Can we please stop with this "make my day" bullshit, these were two teenagers of approximately the same age, not a 10 year old and a 35 year old paedophile in a ski-mask where the intent of the situation is obvious. If you can't make the simple and logical leap "My daughter is probably having sex with this guy and is lying to me, as her father I'm seriously pissed off but it's probably best to put the gun down for a moment at talk this through" then guess what, you don't deserve to hold a firearm in the first fucking place. If you can't demonstrate some level of adult competence and common sense in approaching situations where you're holding something designed to take life then for fuck's sake stay away from other people.



Noways said:


> Girl in my town got raped in her own home with her parents asleep up stairs. A friend of the family was staying at their house for a few days with his kids, threatened to kill her. She never screamed or yelled and the parents only found out a week later. Behold, the power of fear.
> Here's a link to the story.



After all these posts I think I'm most disappointed by the fact I could only neg you once. 

One outlier situation does not justify every John McClane-wannabe father blowing away his daughter's unadmitted boyfriend. Added to the fact there was a clear age difference between the two above which again would make the situation that bit more obvious as to malign intent over two horny teenagers. 



Noways said:


> Now lets play.
> 
> You enter the bed room with the phone in your hand. The scenario plays out and he reaches for something. You call the police, he pulls a gun.
> 
> ...



Biased scenario is biased, want another try at actually creating a neutral situation where there can be a reasonable assumption either way? 



Orochibuto said:


> And the guy refusing to cooperate, AT ALL.



Yeah because everyone knows teenage boys being snuck into houses to have sex are going to be the most forthright of people, especially when their partner's loony father shows up waving a gun and then your partner denies all knowledge of who you are and how you got in. You couldn't possibly be so paralysed with fear over your likely impending beating/death that you don't say anything and/or then make the foolish decision of trying to get out of there because adrenaline is telling you to fight or fly. 



adee said:


> I don't get how the hell the daughter is to be blamed here. You mean to tell me she should have considered the fact that her boyfriend could be _killed_ before inviting her home unknown to her family? I'm sorry but that's just not normal behavior on the part of the parent.



It's called criminally negligent homicide, by lying about who the boyfriend was to her father and how he got into the house when her father had a weapon she placed the boyfriend in the situation where his safety was compromised and he ended up being shot and killed. Legally she is far more responsible for the death than her father who can at least plead ignorance of the boyfriend's true situation and that he was acting in good faith when he fired. Ultimately at any point when the gun appeared had she said "Dad I snuck these guy into the house to have sex with him", then the situation was much less likely to lead to his death (and if it did then the father would be criminally responsible rather than the daughter).



MadmanRobz said:


> Can't we all just agree that both father and daughter fucked up in the heat of the moment and made a mistake that had unfortunate consequences?



How about no, she committed a criminal act, she gets to be charged, convicted and then live with the consequences.



MadmanRobz said:


> I don't think punishing either of them would really have any purpose.



You mean other than upholding the law of the State whereby criminals are charged and prosecuted for illegal acts and the victim's family are given their entitled justice? A family has lost their son to a teenage girl who was too cowardly to admit what she was doing behind her family's back, they're perfectly entitled to want to see her punished.



MadmanRobz said:


> Both of their actions are understandable, and it's not like they'll turn into hard core criminals if left unchecked or anything. Unfortunate shit happened, and that's that.



Yeah, you directly led to someone dying, your bad, no point in being punished though, not like we can't cure death or anything. The victim was right as rain five minutes later, no need to do anything silly like prosecute.



wibisana said:


> why the hell this be debated. the law is clear.
> regardless the story sketchy or not, that need to be proven.



Because there were three people in the room and one of them is guilty of a crime. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not sure why the cafe seems to think that an unidentified person in your house near your daughter that she claims not to know should be given the benefit of the doubt.



Because she's a child and you're an adult, more importantly you have a pair of eyes in your head and a mind of your own to process the situation. Even more importantly as you're male yourself, there is a chance you at 17 snuck into the house of your then girlfriend to be intimate with her behind her parents backs. Teenagers lie to their parents, we've all done it for various reasons good and bad, if you think your child has/will never lie to you then you're obviously ignoring your own past lies to your own parents.

I mean seriously (not directed at you specifically CTK), a person fucking died in this situation, that's the gravity of what's involved. This young man will never have the chance to go to college, have his own independent life, father his own children, etc. Approaching those involved with more than soft words and looks of pity is not uncouth.

Maybe it is just because I'm from a country where gun ownership isn't a right or a very common occurrence, and where it does occur there's a very heavy expectation of responsible behaviour coupled with regular legal safechecks but for the life of me I can't look at the other side of the argument with anything other than bewilderment and the belief that this is a prime example of why gun proliferation to the civilian populace is so dangerous.


----------



## Grimsley (Mar 15, 2014)

wow i just got negged from my post that was on the first few pages of this diatribe mess.

there is a reason why countries that don't have access gun legislation have lower gun crime rates. guns should be banned and whoever disagrees fuck you. guns endanger people's lives, it's an instantaneous way of murdering someone - it just takes one click.


----------



## Mizura (Mar 15, 2014)

@Zeit: Answer: if I were in the position of the victim, i.e. facing an angry home-owner with a gun in his own home, I would most Certainly put up my hands to show that I mean no harm, and avoid making any sudden moves. Isn't this basic common sense? (too bad this guy didn't have any)

And then when the father tells me to identify myself, I Would. Along with telling him that yes, I do know the daughter, she invited me in, and to prove it, I'd start listing off information I know about her such as name, age, school, friends, and other people who can identify me. I'd be so damned scared that I'd try to do everything possible to NOT provoke the one with the gun.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Zeit said:


> Can all of you arguing the father did no ethical/moral wrong (seeing as we've established he isn't criminally wrong) put yourself in the situation of the victim for a second here. How exactly do you react in moments to going from having sex with a girl your own age to staring down the barrel of her father's gun? You partner then tells her father she has no idea who you are or how you got in and thus obviously you're there to rape her (a crime that is often considered worse than murder).
> 
> How exactly do you react in this situation where your body is not only processing all the adrenaline from you either having sex or just about to, to this new adrenaline from the situation where you might lose your life? You're 17, not fully mentally mature in the eyes of the state or most experienced adults looking back on their own teenage shenanigans. You're also likely partially or fully naked, therefore feeling even more vulnerable than you would be fully clothed. Again, how do you respond? More importantly can you be expected to respond completely rationally to a situation that is completely irrational and likely taking place in a very short space of time?
> 
> ...



First off I wouldn't be fucking a girl in high school who's dad didn't know ne. But that's just me.


----------



## Jeroen (Mar 15, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Kinda does, explains why he brought a gun.



He brought a gun because he's an idiot that happens to have a gun. Weird noises or someone being in his daughter's bedroom with her don't change that, so, no, it really doesn't change a thing.



> Completely relevant, the guy was told not to move. Instead of communicating with the father that he isn't some rapist, he defies his demand and makes himself seem as a threat.



Common sense should have told the dad that there was no raping going on. 
Although that would require the dad to have any, which he, apparently, didn't.

> 17 year old boy
> in 16 year old girl's bedroom

Doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on.



> What? I can't dignify this with a proper response. The man was told not to move, instead of heeding the warning, he decided to try and grab something. Thats a clear sign of aggression, even if the girl said she who the guy was, though in that scenario I doubt it would have ended with the father shooting the guy.



> man
boy*

How is that a clear sign of aggression ? Cause I'm pretty sure that attacking her father isn't the way to a 16 years old's heart. At least, not with most girls...
Pretty sure that moving constitutes as an act of moving. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not sure why the cafe seems to think that an unidentified person in your house near your daughter that she claims not to know should be given the benefit of the doubt.



Probably since the days where daughters would have boys over without their parents noticing. Which is for quite some time I think, not sure, though.


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

And this is part of the reason why the US is perceived as a gun-loving, dog-shoot-dog, homicidal Hell by europeans.

...cuz it kinda is and well, there's an element of pride in that, me thinks.


----------



## Mizura (Mar 15, 2014)

Mr. Waffles said:


> Common sense should have told the dad that there was no raping going on.
> Although that would require the dad to have any, which he, apparently, didn't.
> 
> > 17 year old boy
> ...


That is only the most statistically likely scenario. It is not the worst case scenario. When the daughter denied knowing him and the boy defied his order not to move, the man went with the possible worst-case scenario.

This is the U.S. This means that it was possible that the boy himself had a gun. Unlikely, but still possible worst-case scenario.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Mr. Waffles said:


> Probably since the days where daughters would have boys over without their parents noticing. Which is for quite some time I think, not sure, though.



My parents have always known all my friends. Any girls I was dating and some acquaintances. I make it a point to talk to them about the them and bring them over. And in high school if I were going to sleep with some girl at her house I would at least have spoken to her dad before when I came over or around school or something so that he knew I was someone involved with his daughter in some way. Ultimately I think it's the daughter's fault for lying. 

All of the anti gun rhetoric is just white noise. This is the reason we have guns for protecting home and family.


----------



## Zeit (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> First off I wouldn't be fucking a girl in high school who's dad didn't know ne. But that's just me.



Nor probably would I, however if it happened my expectation would certainly not to be shot by her father after she lies about not knowing me. Young people do dumb things, that does not ethically absolve parents from foregoing adult reasoning. Teenage romances developing behind their parents backs are a staple of American entertainment across all strata, so adults can't reasonably be all that surprising by finding out their teenage children are having sex. They perfectly entitled not to like it but jumping from Occam's Razor in this situation to Worst Possible Scenario is neither reasonable nor ethically justifiable in my opinion. It implies the father is naive and lived as a monk up until he met his daughter's mother at which point he courted her in chivalric fashion, remaining chaste until they married. 

Again this all assumes that this is what actually transpired which remains suspect.


----------



## Jeroen (Mar 15, 2014)

Mizura said:


> That is only the most statistically likely scenario. It is not the worst case scenario. When the daughter denied knowing him and the boy defied his order not to move, the man went with the possible worst-case scenario.
> 
> This is the U.S. This means that it was possible that the boy himself had a gun. Unlikely, but still possible worst-case scenario.



If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, why would you assume it to be a T-Rex ?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> My parents have always known all my friends. Any girls I was dating and some acquaintances. I make it a point to talk to them about the them and bring them over. And in high school if I were going to sleep with some girl at her house I would at least have spoken to her dad before when I came over or around school or something so that he knew I was someone involved with his daughter in some way. Ultimately I think it's the daughter's fault for lying.



> my parents
Pretty sure you don't represent every 16-ish year old boy and girl, so your story is nice, but doesn't really mean much, does it ?

Although I agree that the daughter lying didn't help in this case.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Mr. Waffles said:


> If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, why would you assume it to be a T-Rex ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can't ask me to put myself in the victim's shoes and get mad when I explain why I wouldn't be in this situation.


----------



## Zeit (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> All of the anti gun rhetoric is just white noise. This is the reason we have guns for protecting home and family.



So that a lie from a family member can escalate a situation to the point where an innocent third-party is killed? This is pretty much the worst example of why gun ownership for home protection is justified.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Zeit said:


> So that a lie from a family member can escalate a situation to the point where an innocent third-party is killed? This is pretty much the worst example of why gun ownership for home protection is justified.



I think it's a better example of why lying is a problem. The kid could have just as easily been stabbed or beaten with a bat. The guy only shot because of the lie and the reaction of the kid after the lie. 

With the number of deadly home invasions, rapes and robberies out here I don't think the man's gun ownership is the problem.


----------



## Tapion (Mar 15, 2014)

yes the boy should not have moved that is clear...but I wish people would stop using this argument to justify him being shot. 

I will explain why.

1. sneaking into your girlfriend's house to have sex is exciting isn't it? you have to be over the edge listening to whoever is coming >>>adrenalin 

2. having/going to have sex, boy becomes even more excited we can assume he has even more adrenalin.

3. Man busts door with a gun, boy is shocked, even more adrenalin is being pumped...he is probably scared shit less.

4. gf says he does not know him, boy probably feels a whirlwind of emotions at this point in time having been thrown under the buss like that. His life is now in danger and he can no longer think rationally...at this point he does not know what to say or probably cannot speak after what just happened. 

5. Fight/Flight kicks in maybe he tries to get off his daughter, reach for his clothes or flee. (still think this part is bullshit by the father and he shot him after his daughter said she did not know him)

now he should have stayed still if he wanted to live, It was the logical thing to do, no?...but how can you expect the boy to think logically after all that I have listed? his reaction is realistic.

I find it sad that people are blaming the boy instead of the triggerhappy father or scared daughter not wanting her father's wrath.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Starraver said:


> yes the boy should not have moved that is clear...but I wish people would stop using this argument to justify him being shot.
> 
> I will explain why.
> 
> ...


For the same reason his movement shouldn't be blamed neither should the father for shooting. This person could shoot me or my daughter. Ironically that news story wouldn?t make it to the Cafe.


----------



## Zeit (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think it's a better example of why lying is a problem. The kid could have just as easily been stabbed or beaten with a bat. The guy only shot because of the lie and the reaction of the kid after the lie.
> 
> With the number of deadly home invasions, rapes and robberies out here I don't think the man's gun ownership is the problem.



I agree that lying/teenage stupidity is the crux issue with the situation, however it's more so to me the capacity for death that a gun possesses over a bat/golf club/knife. To use any of the latter on someone several meters away you have to cross the room to them and there's less opportunity for instance provocation (sudden movement) than lead to death as can occur with someone being spooked and discharging a firearm. Obviously this assumes that the other party does not likely possess a firearm of their own with which to trump your bat.

No, the ownership of a gun in an of itself isn't a problem either but owning one represents the opportunity to use it, even in cases where it shouldn't be provided the wrong mentality is used (in this case). I think really it's a good example of promoting responsible gun ownership where proper training allows the wielder to examine a situation, even/especially a serious one and act in an appropriate manner. Most obvious example I can give would be the kinds of training the police officers undergo in order to use their weapons.

This whole situation just reeks of a lack of common sense in all quarters which makes it such a tragedy.


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

When the consequence of being found bedding a man's teenage daughter include being shot dead right where you were found, you can't seriously deny somebody has way too much killing-power at their disposal. And then, you might possibly entertain the notion that the aforementioned somebody might be representative for a rather large group of somebodys, and then you might entertain the notion that the problem could be systemic.


....neah, no way


----------



## Tapion (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> For the same reason his movement shouldn't be blamed neither should the father for shooting. This person could shoot me or my daughter. Ironically that news story wouldn?t make it to the Cafe.



the thing here is that the father had the next move, had the gun, he isn't allowed to think irrationally in my opinion. he could have fired a warning shot and told him not to move and state the consequences of moving again. afterwords he goes in and inspects if there is a weapon or not...

some one probably brought up that point already anyway.

funny, the point of the boy moving is what is causing people to defend the father's action here....if this is a lie it might just saved him from doing time.


----------



## SionBarsod (Mar 15, 2014)

In all honesty this all falls back on the daughter. She had no reason to lie and look at what happened.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Starraver said:


> the thing here is that the father had the next move, had the gun, he isn't allowed to think irrationally in my opinion. he could have fired a warning shot and told him not to move and state the consequences of moving again. afterwords he goes in and inspects if there is a weapon or not...
> 
> some one probably brought up that point already anyway.
> 
> funny, the point of the boy moving is what is causing people to defend the father's action here....if this is a lie it might just saved him from doing time.


Even if he's not lying he's within his right. You can't be caught in houses in Texas without permission and if the daughter lied he had every right to shoot.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 15, 2014)

Starraver said:


> the thing here is that the father had the next move, had the gun, he isn't allowed to think irrationally in my opinion. he could have fired a warning shot and told him not to move and state the consequences of moving again. afterwords he goes in and inspects if there is a weapon or not...
> 
> some one probably brought up that point already anyway.



I actually did say "maybe he could have done X", then realized that firing a warning shot in an enclosed space probably would not be such a good idea.


----------



## Scila9 (Mar 15, 2014)

> The daughter later confessed that she did indeed know who the boy was and that she had let him into her bedroom on purpose.




Dumbass. Did she not see the gun in her father's hand? Did she really think he wouldn't shoot a 'stranger' found unwelcome in his daughter's bedroom? In his daughter's _bed_?


----------



## Griever (Mar 15, 2014)

Starraver said:


> the thing here is that the father had the next move, had the gun, he isn't allowed to think irrationally in my opinion. he could have fired a warning shot and told him not to move and state the consequences of moving again. afterwords he goes in and inspects if there is a weapon or not...



Firing a warning shot in an urban environment is stupid and irresponsible. so, no he shouldn't have fired a warning shot. And if the father really did think the kid was an intruder/rapist (which seems it may be likely given the circumstance, remember; hindsight is 20/20) then allowing him to move is also very stupid as you don't know what he's reaching for, and if he was a legitimate threat then that action could have very well cost both him an his daughter their lives. That is the thinking there, it's pretty foolish to be giving him flank for it as it doesn't matter who is holding the gun, police, civilian or military if they tell you not to move and you move they will open fire.  

Still though, it's unfortunate.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

People don't get that warning shots have to come down somewhere.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 15, 2014)

Why are people not getting that firing warning shots is ILLEGAL!


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

Don't fire warning shots, it's illegal. Shoot someone instead. That's no warning shot. 

Do you hear yourself? (or in this case, read yourself)

And everybody stfu about what is legal and what is not, at this point it's only detracting from the ethical issues of this case. I find it bizarre that some individuals here are so hung up on what is legal and if the man was in his right (which is to say, if he's going to get away with it) to shoot the life out of a trespasser.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Magicbullet said:


> Don't fire warning shots, it's illegal. Shoot someone instead. That's no warning shot.
> 
> Do you hear yourself? (or in this case, read yourself)
> 
> And everybody stfu about what is legal and what is not, at this point it's only detracting from the ethical issues of this case.



The law is all that matters from a legal stand point. Legal might not always be ethical.


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The law is all that matters from a legal stand point. Legal might not always be ethical.



No shit. But that's just part of the problem, now, isn't it?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Magicbullet said:


> No shit. But that's just part of the problem, now, isn't it?



No the problem is lying. You guys can't blame guns just because they get used and something bad happens. This is the kind of situation where I think guns should be legal. In your own home with intruders.


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

Hell no, the problem is that guy having a gun to begin with. I don't blame guns, I blame the morons that use them in their egotistical blind fantasies of PROTECTING THEIR HOME AND FAMILY!!!111eleventyFUCKYAHMURICA! 

That's who I blame, I blame the bastard that lolthoughthesawsomeonereachforsomething and then shot them dead.

It probably wouldn't piss me off if the above were not an acceptable basis for shirking a murder sentence, but well...we know better.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Magicbullet said:


> Hell no, the problem is that guy having a gun to begin with. I don't blame guns, I blame the morons that use them in their egotistical blind fantasies of PROTECTING THEIR HOME AND FAMILY!!!111eleventyFUCKYAHMURICA!
> 
> That's who I blame, I blame the bastard that lolthoughthesawsomeonereachforsomething and then shot them dead.



Then you're as crazy as JSJ. Believing a person has no right to protect their home and family? Safety is a fantasy? 

That's ridiculous.


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then you're as crazy as JSJ. *Believing a person has no right to protect their home and family?* Safety is a fantasy?
> 
> That's ridiculous.



When did I say _that_? I believe they do have that right, don't jump to conclusions. What I don't believe is that they should have access to advanced killing weapons in order to do so. Everything has degrees.


edit: As a side note, yeah safety really is a fantasy, while that's not what I meant by fantasy. That part is true.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Mar 15, 2014)

So... how did it happen, exactly?

The father walks in, sees his dumb bitch of a daughter in bed with some teenager. She suddenly claims she doesn't know who he is. From the dad's POV, why didn't she yell for help?

Anyway, what happened next? Did the father told the teenager not to move as he left the room to bring his gun? Or does he carry his gun around the house all the time?


----------



## navy (Mar 15, 2014)

There is  no mention of whether they were having sex/in bed or not.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 15, 2014)

Noways said:


> He's in he's in YOUR house. You don't know him and your daughter is frightened and doesn't know him.
> 
> How is that even remotely similar to walking down a public street?


How? That you shouldn't be killing people in either circumstance unless they are putting you in mortal danger. 


Noways said:


> She lied, well too bad people are not lie detectors,  her lie caused a man to protect his family. The kid died, yeah sad, but that father was completely in the right. There is no gray area for his actions.


Protect them from what? The guy didn't have a weapon?



Yami Munesanzun said:


> the entirety of this thread deals with your argument; so - as was implied previously - I don't need to repeat what's been said several times already in response to your argument, assuming you've actually read those posts.
> 
> but, you know, feel free to be snarky.


If you didn't want a snarky comment then don't quote my and then stand on a soap box and rant without referencing anything in my post.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 15, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The law is all that matters from a legal stand point. Legal might not always be ethical.



Such is reality in this sad world... 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then you're as crazy as JSJ. Believing a person has no right to protect their home and family? Safety is a fantasy?
> 
> That's ridiculous.



Didn't we just said he was indeed on his right, but that since the guy wasn't an intruder and the daughter painted him that way she's to get charged with Murder 2.0 or Negligent Manslaughter?


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 15, 2014)

20 fucking pages...

What the hell.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 15, 2014)

20? I've got just 8!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> 20? I've got just 8!



You got your posts per page turned up?


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 15, 2014)

The father has to prove the kid made a move for a supposed weapon or he just got up for all we know. I'll be interested to see what they can dig up on his hero of a dad, I bet something pretty nasty judging by how quick he was to shoot a kid who was probably the girl's boyfriend. And add in the family of the kid wanting justice, this is gonna get pretty messy.


----------



## Nordstrom (Mar 15, 2014)

^^ Yeah, it's all the way to 50+ per page.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Mar 15, 2014)

Magicbullet said:


> When did I say _that_? I believe they do have that right, don't jump to conclusions. *What I don't believe is that they should have access to advanced killing weapons in order to do so. Everything has degrees.
> *
> 
> edit: As a side note, yeah safety really is a fantasy, while that's not what I meant by fantasy. That part is true.



So if he killed him by hitting him upside the head with a Metal bat that would be ok?


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 15, 2014)

Oh shit this poor kid is black. Makes sense.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 15, 2014)

The girlfriend deserves a ton of blame.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Mar 15, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> Oh shit this poor kid is black. Makes sense.



So was the shooter.


----------



## Magicbullet (Mar 15, 2014)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> So if he killed him by hitting him upside the head with a Metal bat that would be ok?



Now when in the blue hell did I insinuate that would have been ok? 
Whatever point you're trying to make, please actually _make _it. Don't post asinine questions as if you were probing me. _State _your damn position.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

Mr. Waffles said:


> He brought a gun because he's an idiot that happens to have a gun. Weird noises or someone being in his daughter's bedroom with her don't change that, so, no, it really doesn't change a thing.



Weird noises due constitute measures of safety, someone you didn't invite into your house does constitute measures of safety.





> Common sense should have told the dad that there was no raping going on.
> Although that would require the dad to have any, which he, apparently, didn't.
> 
> > 17 year old boy
> ...



Yeah, he figured it was what any horny teenagers were doing, thats why he asked the daughter who he was, the daughter then told her father that she didn't know the guy. The situation changed from catching his daughter having sex to having a unknown assailant in the house.





> > man
> boy*
> 
> How is that a clear sign of aggression ? Cause I'm pretty sure that attacking her father isn't the way to a 16 years old's heart. At least, not with most girls...
> Pretty sure that moving constitutes as an act of moving.



You have a unknown man in your house having sex with your daughter and she claims she doesn't know who he is. The logical conclusion is the man is a rapist, the father instead of shooting him, he told the guy not to move , most likely in the process to call the police. The father pointed the gun at the guy and told him not to move, instead of heeding his warning the boy goes to reach for something, an act of desperation.

The fact the guy didn't have a weapon is irrelevant.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 15, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> The father has to prove the kid made a move for a supposed weapon or he just got up for all we know. I'll be interested to see what they can dig up on his hero of a dad, I bet something pretty nasty judging by how quick he was to shoot a kid who was probably the girl's boyfriend. And add in the family of the kid wanting justice, this is gonna get pretty messy.



Wrong, the father just has to prove that he was in the house and that he had no idea the boy was invited. I can shoot anyone strange in my house whether I see them have or go for a gun or not. That's the law here.


----------



## Tapion (Mar 15, 2014)

Griever said:


> Firing a warning shot in an urban environment is stupid and irresponsible. so, no he shouldn't have fired a warning shot.




It would have prevented the death of a teenager...Is that not more important than going by the book? his neighbors get spooked over gun fire is way better than out right killing someone who did not deserve to die, the family of the boy will certainly agree. 

people take death way too lightly these days.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 15, 2014)

Starraver said:


> It would have prevented the death of a teenager...Is that not more important than going by the book? his neighbors get spooked over gun fire is way better than out right killing someone who did not deserve to die, the family of the boy will certainly agree.
> 
> people take death way too lightly these days.



It's legally safer for you to kill someone than it is to fire a warning shot afaik.

That is, the american legal system seems optimized for murder.


----------



## Griever (Mar 15, 2014)

Starraver said:


> It would have prevented the death of a teenager...Is that not more important than going by the book? his neighbors get spooked over gun fire is way better than out right killing someone who did not deserve to die, the family of the boy will certainly agree.
> 
> people take death way too lightly these days.



No, you never fire a gun unless you have a target, Period. It has nothing to do with the legality of warning shots.


----------



## Tapion (Mar 15, 2014)

Griever said:


> No, you never fire a gun unless you have a target, Period. It has nothing to do with the legality of warning shots.



Yes you do, the repercussion of a warning shot is no where as fucking drastic as up right murdering someone. there are times when saying "fuck the rules" is the right thing to do.

but I would like you to explain why *If I feel* a warning shot will prevent me from murdering someone or they would comply with my demands, why I should not do it and just execute them instead.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 15, 2014)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> It's legally safer for you to kill someone than it is to fire a warning shot afaik.
> 
> That is, the american legal system seems optimized for murder.



One of the reasons is that warning shots aren't really realistic in the real world, since you're held liable for everything your bullet does and because people don't have the ability to aim like 007 when danger rapidly approaches.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 15, 2014)

the fuck people keep saying murder when the law itself says no.
are you judge Dreed or what
if not you cant say it's murder by American justice system where the case in happened


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

You always shoot to kill when you believe your life is in jeopardy. If you had time to aim your gun for anywhere other then center of mass, you can't argue you believed your life was in jeopardy.


----------



## Noways (Mar 15, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> You always shoot to kill when you believe your life is in jeopardy. If you had time to aim your gun for anywhere other then center of mass, you can't argue you believed your life was in jeopardy.



FREEZE UNKOWN INTRUDER
*goes to grab something you can't see*

Now your life is in jeopardy,  yeah it's that quick.

Also, this isn't Hollywood and not all gun owners are sharp shooters, you aim at the center for that very reason.


----------



## Tapion (Mar 15, 2014)

It seems we have reached an Impasse.

I believe if you think you can control the situation by whatever means, warning shots or whatever, you should at least try to.I mean in situations where its possible for a misunderstanding of course, not when its obvious someone is out for blood....meh.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 15, 2014)

Noways said:


> FREEZE UNKOWN INTRUDER
> *goes to grab something you can't see*
> 
> Now your life is in jeopardy,  yeah it's that quick.



If the they are going to go grab something after you already pointed a gun at them and verbally warned them, the most logical conclusion is that they are going for a weapon and they don't give a shit about your warning.

I don't what know what fantasy world you live in, but precautions have to be made and taken.


----------



## Noways (Mar 15, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> If the they are going to go grab something after you already pointed a gun at them and verbally warned them, the most logical conclusion is that they are going for a weapon and they don't give a shit about your warning.
> 
> I don't what know what fantasy world you live in, but precautions have to be made and taken.



Mmm, misread your previous post. I agree, cookies for everyone except the ones that want to throw an innocent father in prison.


----------



## Harard (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm almost certain this story is bullshit and the guilty dad is just covering himself. But we can only go by what we're told, not what we think.


----------



## Jeroen (Mar 16, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> You have a unknown man in your house having sex with your daughter and she claims she doesn't know who he is. The logical conclusion is the man is a rapist, the father instead of shooting him, he told the guy not to move , most likely in the process to call the police. The father pointed the gun at the guy and told him not to move, instead of heeding his warning the boy goes to reach for something, an act of desperation.



> The logical conclusion is the man is a rapist

So, between "my daughter is lying to me" and "boy is raping my daughter", you go for rapist and call it the logical conclusion. Must be nice living in a world where children don't lie to their parents.

I'd say that that boggles my mind, but my mind just jumped out of the window.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 16, 2014)

>Trying to determine what a LOGICAL conclusion would be in an incident where adrenaline is surging in a highly emotional state


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 16, 2014)

Mr. Waffles said:


> > The logical conclusion is the man is a rapist
> 
> So, between "my daughter is lying to me" and "boy is raping my daughter", you go for rapist and call it the logical conclusion. Must be nice living in a world where children don't lie to their parents.
> 
> I'd say that that boggles my mind, but my mind just jumped out of the window.



Why would I believe my daughter is lying, must be nice living in a world where people don't go and rape people in their own homes. Based on the information, the guy refused to identify himself or didn't make himself seem as a non threat, that gives validity towards the daughters claim. If the guy had refuted the daughters claim, the entire situation would have changed.




> >Trying to determine what a LOGICAL conclusion would be in an incident where adrenaline is surging in a highly emotional state



Based on information the father made completely logical choices, the two kids were just scared shitless and were unable to properly cooperate to defuse the situation.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 16, 2014)

The amount of pages for such a clear cut event is simply astounding.   

The kids girlfriend was stupid and the kid payed the price. Usually such cases have an element of doubt, where the fathers motive may be in question, but not in this one. 

Certainly the kid would have probably lived if the father had a bat instead of a gun, since its harder to _acidentally_ kill with it than a gun. However this case doesn't serve as a good example for anti-gun legislation and its sad to see so many people trying to twist it into one. :thisshit

There are much more valid examples for doing that, while here it just weakens your stance by making it appear that your agenda outweighs the merits of your argument.


----------



## Griever (Mar 16, 2014)

Starraver said:


> It seems we have reached an Impasse.
> 
> I believe if you think you can control the situation by whatever means, warning shots or whatever, you should at least try to.I mean in situations where its possible for a misunderstanding of course, not when its obvious someone is out for blood....meh.



But if you really think about it, a warning shots main purpose is to grab the persons attention, however by the time they are looking down the barrel of a gun, it is safe to say their attention has been secured a warning shot at that point is meaningless. 

Also, Warning shots are simply unsafe the only real reason people are bringing it up is because of Hollywood's glorification of such, the reality though; stray bullets are extremely damaging, you can kill your neighbor, you can chip a gas line. You just don't want to do it, it's dangerous, irresponsible and potentially fatal, and that is why it is illegal.


----------



## Orochimaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Orochimaru said:


> Fair enough. Any word on race or ethnicity?





Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I really don't think that even plays a part. The girl lied made the dad think the situation was something else bottom line.
> 
> It might of been different if the girl was white and boy was black and the girl said I love him and the dad shot him after that. Other then that I don't think race plays a part.





Hand Banana said:


> He was of the human race but not sure his skin color and that most likely won't be released along with any of his other info like hair color or shoe size and penis girth until the day of a trial since he was a minor. And by minor I don't mean black or Hispanic.



Ok, so we've found out he's black; any word on the girl and/or her father?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ing-him-in-bed-with-his-daughter-9194397.html


----------



## Adrianhamm (Mar 16, 2014)

Orochimaru said:


> Ok, so we've found out he's black; any word on the girl and/or her father?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ing-him-in-bed-with-his-daughter-9194397.html



They are black too.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1si-J3kScM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 16, 2014)

So a no win situation. If he gets let off people will cry about they don't care since the victim is black and if they convict its because he was black. Even though race is irrelevant here.

The news clip states they only moved in a week ago, so that adds more credibility to the father. He was probably more inclined to believe her, since he didn't think she would be sneaking in a guy she knew less than a week.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Mar 16, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> So a no win situation. If he gets let off people will cry about they don't care since the victim is black and if they convict its because he was black. Even though race is irrelevant here.
> 
> The news clip states they only moved in a week ago, so that adds more credibility to the father. He was probably more inclined to believe her, since he didn't think she would be sneaking in a guy she knew less than a week.



No win for who, Al Sharpton? Race should not have been relevant from the start.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 16, 2014)

Adrianhamm said:


> No win for who, Al Sharpton? Race should not have been relevant from the start.



For people like me who don't want this to boil down to a race issue. I am in perfect agreement that race is irrelevant and played no factor here.
Just look at the posts above mine, too see people trying to turn it into one.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 16, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> So a no win situation. If he gets let off people will cry about they don't care since the victim is black and if they convict its because he was black. Even though race is irrelevant here.
> 
> The news clip states they only moved in a week ago, so that adds more credibility to the father. He was probably more inclined to believe her, since he didn't think she would be sneaking in a guy she knew less than a week.


No one is going to cry about race here.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Mar 16, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> For people like me who don't want this to boil down to a race issue. I am in perfect agreement that race is irrelevant and played no factor here.
> Just look at the posts above mine, too see people trying to turn it into one.


The info has been out awhile. If someone is making an issue of race then they didn't bother to research the subject or they are not being honest.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 16, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> Oh shit this poor kid is black. Makes sense.



Well there is this plus Orochimaru's posts on this page itself, that made me worry about the threads direction.
But I'm dropping the subject now, since I don't want to become like a character in a greek tragedy, where he himself brings about that which he fears.


----------



## Orochimaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Well now that we know they're both black, nobody in Texas is going to care anymore.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 16, 2014)

From now on I am automatically dismissing someone's argument if they argue that any person should have fired a warning shot.


----------



## navy (Mar 16, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> From now on I am automatically dismissing someone's argument if they argue that any person should have fired a warning shot.



Well he shouldnt have shot all.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 16, 2014)

No he had just cause to, the people whom are saying otherwise have the benefit of hindsight. From what the father saw and what his daughter said indicated that there was a threat to himself and his family at that immediate time.

And this is what will be judged on during any trials, what the daughter said afterwords should have little bearing on the fact that at that time he perceived there was a credible threat to himself and family and as a result was justified in using deadly force.


----------



## Stelios (Mar 28, 2014)

Orochimaru said:


> Well now that we know they're both black, *nobody in Texas* is going to care anymore.



Did you ask all of them ?


----------



## Gino (Mar 28, 2014)

Execute the father and the daughter.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 28, 2014)

Missed this story entirely o___o

...ya...I'm not at all understanding this situation. Father walks into daughters room and sees her with a guy, and she says she doesn't know him? ...and he BELIEVED her?? ....when he walked in was he on top of her holding her down? I'm so confused. Daughter was with a guy, ok ya whatever lied about it, kinda dumb not a big deal. But the father actually was convinced enough to kill him?? I don't know maybe I'm just missing something big...thats just ridiculous on his part. Maybe he just freaked out...but still ugh...you killed a teenage boy... It's probably gonna mess him up for a while D:


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 28, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Missed this story entirely o___o
> 
> ...ya...I'm not at all understanding this situation. Father walks into daughters room and sees her with a guy, and she says she doesn't know him? ...and he BELIEVED her?? ....when he walked in was he on top of her holding her down? I'm so confused. Daughter was with a guy, ok ya whatever lied about it, kinda dumb not a big deal. But the father actually was convinced enough to kill him?? I don't know maybe I'm just missing something big...thats just ridiculous on his part. Maybe he just freaked out...but still ugh...you killed a teenage boy... It's probably gonna mess him up for a while D:



There have been a lot of break ins in Houston and home invasions and the news talks about them a lot. So it's not that far fetched. I know at least two people who have had their houses violently broken into, so it's not really something that we don't deal with down here. People keep guns in the home to protect themselves. If the girl saw the gun and decided that saving face was more important than the boy's life it's kind of her fault.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 28, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There have been a lot of break ins in Houston and home invasions and the news talks about them a lot. So it's not that far fetched. I know at least two people who have had their houses violently broken into, so it's not really something that we don't deal with down here. People keep guns in the home to protect themselves. If the girl saw the gun and decided that saving face was more important than the boy's life it's kind of her fault.


Well thats awful! Don't hear much about any home invasions where I am. So what what the situation when he walked in on the bedroom though? Do we know all the details? Were they both fully clothed O__O?


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 28, 2014)

Wow. Surprisingly little sympathy for the dad in here. 

I kind of think most fathers would have done what he did in that situation. Finding your daughter in bed (in your own house) with someone, especially someone you don't recognize and someone she claims she doesn't know either, is bound to be offputting. Add to that the fact that he moved suddenly...

It's easy to criticize him in retrospect but I think the mental state of your average father who walks in on his daughter having sex with a stranger is going to be pretty haphazard, even ignoring all the aggravating factors. Parents do crazy things when they think their kids are in danger, and I'd think that a father's fear of his daughter being sexually assaulted in some way is pretty powerful.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 28, 2014)

PikaCheeka said:


> Wow. Surprisingly little sympathy for the dad in here.
> 
> I kind of think most fathers would have done what he did in that situation. Finding your daughter in bed (in your own house) with someone, especially someone you don't recognize and someone she claims she doesn't know either, is bound to be offputting. Add to that the fact that he moved suddenly...
> 
> It's easy to criticize him in retrospect but I think the mental state of your average father who walks in on his daughter having sex with a stranger is going to be pretty haphazard, even ignoring all the aggravating factors. Parents do crazy things when they think their kids are in danger, and I'd think that a father's fear of his daughter being sexually assaulted in some way is pretty powerful.


I think it is cause I don't know what he fully saw when he walked in there....


----------



## Savior (Mar 28, 2014)

Good grief man. America keeps churning out these crazy stories.


----------



## BashFace (Mar 28, 2014)

Because it's all word of mouth and how everything was perceived at the time, we will never know if the dad just walked in with the shits and shot her boyfriend. 

I don't see anyway to argue about this or prove or disprove anything... This sucks ass heaps!!!!!!


----------



## Griever (Mar 28, 2014)

A necromancer is afoot


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 28, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Well thats awful! Don't hear much about any home invasions where I am. So what what the situation when he walked in on the bedroom though? Do we know all the details? Were they both fully clothed O__O?



The way the story goes is the father was told by his kids that their heard weird noises in there sister room and someone else is up their, he brings his gun, barges in, asks his daughter who this guy was and she tells him she doesn't know. The father points his gun at the guy and tells him not to move, instead of trying to defuse the situation, he decides to move anyways to try and grab something.

The two critical factors are the sisters lying, and the guy not cooperating. If either of these things were changed it wouldn't have happened. The daughter was too scared of getting busted she started lying, the guy scared shitless (most likely) thought he could make a quick escape and went to grab his clothes.

If this is the whole story or not, we probably never know unless one of them decides to change to story.


----------



## Gino (Mar 28, 2014)

Kill them all.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 29, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> The way the story goes is the father was told by his kids that their heard weird noises in there sister room and someone else is up their, he brings his gun, barges in, asks his daughter who this guy was and she tells him she doesn't know. The father points his gun at the guy and tells him not to move, instead of trying to defuse the situation, he decides to move anyways to try and grab something.
> 
> The two critical factors are the sisters lying, and the guy not cooperating. If either of these things were changed it wouldn't have happened. The daughter was too scared of getting busted she started lying, the guy scared shitless (most likely) thought he could make a quick escape and went to grab his clothes.
> 
> If this is the whole story or not, we probably never know unless one of them decides to change to story.


I'm just trying to see this through the dad's POV...like...were they in bed? Did the guy look threatening...did the daughter look truly afraid of the guy, or did she just seems really flustered and quickly trying to come up with a lie. Were they both wearing clothes...or not?

The situation seems like the cliche omg walk in on my daughter with a guy she didn't want me to know was there. 

I'm trying to get this to make sense...but bleh
ugh...overall this is just a horrible incident that shouldn't have ended in the death of someone...


I wonder how old the siblings were...like did they really not know what their sister was doing if they were older? Cause it would be really suckish if secretly they wanted their parent to walk in and get her in trouble... cause wow did that end badly.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 29, 2014)

LesExit said:


> I'm just trying to see this through the dad's POV...like...were they in bed? Did the guy look threatening...did the daughter look truly afraid of the guy, or did she just seems really flustered and quickly trying to come up with a lie. Were they both wearing clothes...or not?
> 
> The situation seems like the cliche omg walk in on my daughter with a guy she didn't want me to know was there.
> 
> ...



Its pretty easy to figure out the dads POV.

He grabbed his gun expecting the worst, barged in and scared the shit out of both of them, he figures his daughter was doing what any horny teenager would be doing and having sex with her boyfriend, which is why he asked who the guy was. As soon as she said she didn't know, alarms went off in his head and told the guy to freeze, probably going to have one of the kids call the police. Instead of complying or trying make himself seem not as a threat, he goes to grab something, which could have weapon and the father retaliates before his family is put in more danger.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 29, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Its pretty easy to figure out the dads POV.
> 
> He grabbed his gun expecting the worst, barged in and scared the shit out of both of them, he figures his daughter was doing what any horny teenager would be doing and having sex with her boyfriend, which is why he asked who the guy was. As soon as she said she didn't know, alarms went off in his head and told the guy to freeze, probably going to have one of the kids call the police. Instead of complying or trying make himself seem not as a threat, he goes to grab something, which could have weapon and the father retaliates before his family is put in more danger.


I guess I'm also not even getting why he believed them. 
Maybe if I was in his shoes and saw what he saw I would've done the same...
but looking at it from the outside, I just don't get it.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 29, 2014)

> I guess I'm also not even getting why he believed them.
> Maybe if I was in his shoes and saw what he saw I would've done the same...
> but looking at it from the outside, I just don't get it.



He didn't shoot immediately after his daughter told she didn't know who he was, he acted in the most logical fashion and pointed his gun at the guy and told him not to move. If the guy had been a rapist, he was caught, if he was not a rapist, then no harm done. The shooting only happened after the guy explicitly defied the order to not move and went to go reach for something, which completely justified the father reaction to shoot the guy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 29, 2014)

Yeah, no matter what the kid did moving when told not to with a gun on him was the worst idea.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 29, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> He didn't shoot immediately after his daughter told she didn't know who he was, he acted in the most logical fashion and pointed his gun at the guy and told him not to move. If the guy had been a rapist, he was caught, if he was not a rapist, then no harm done. The shooting only happened after the guy explicitly defied the order to not move and went to go reach for something, which completely justified the father reaction to shoot the guy.


mmm...no it's just not good enough for me. My mind just cannot accept this outcome as being something that made the most sense. I wish I could see this actually happen(well actually maybe not .__.)


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah, no matter what the kid did moving when told not to with a gun on him was the worst idea.


Probably didn't believe he would actually shot him.... 
did the girl think her dad would actually shoot him?
I can't believe he would shoot him.
Ugh maybe I'm just too naive of a person, I don't know... ヽ(ー_ー )ノ


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 29, 2014)

LesExit said:


> mmm...no it's just not good enough for me. My mind just cannot accept this outcome as being something that made the most sense. I wish I could see this actually happen(well actually maybe not .__.)
> 
> Probably didn't believe he would actually shot him....
> did the girl think her dad would actually shoot him?
> ...



Probably naive, when someone points a gun at you, if you value your life you do as they say, a command to not move is pretty simple. Its the same when a police officer points there gun and tells you not to move, doing something suspicious is the last thing you want to do. 

I doubt they were thinking too clearly, the daughter was more worried about saving face, we have no idea what was going on through the guys head other then he was trying to make a desperate attempt to grab something after he was told not to move, probably scared shitless and just wanted out.

Its a tragic event, and people want to blame someone, but there isn't anyone to be held accountable.


----------



## LesExit (Mar 29, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Probably naive, when someone points a gun at you, if you value your life you do as they say, a command to not move is pretty simple. Its the same when a police officer points there gun and tells you not to move, doing something suspicious is the last thing you want to do.
> 
> I doubt they were thinking too clearly, the daughter was more worried about saving face, we have no idea what was going on through the guys head other then he was trying to make a desperate attempt to grab something after he was told not to move, probably scared shitless and just wanted out.
> 
> Its a tragic event, and people want to blame someone, but there isn't anyone to be held accountable.


I'm pretty sure I wouldn't move, but I guess it I was caught with a girl I wasn't supposed to be with, and a gun was suddenly flung out of nowhere I might do what the kid did....then if the guy was like her dad I'd be dead I guess 

I wonder what that was he grabbing for...I'm assuming his pants. Was the girl wearing clothes? ...or do we just not know? 

This whole thing just saddens me, it would've been better if the dad didn't end up shooting somewhere vital D:
....then I looked at your signature and got even more sad o____o what the heck is that?? It starts so nice....and then theres a chopped up body....


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 29, 2014)

LesExit said:


> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't move, but I guess it I was caught with a girl I wasn't supposed to be with, and a gun was suddenly flung out of nowhere I might do what the kid did....then if the guy was like her dad I'd be dead I guess
> 
> I wonder what that was he grabbing for...I'm assuming his pants. Was the girl wearing clothes? ...or do we just not know?
> 
> ...



I doubt it was out of nowhere, the guy barged in and asked his daughter who it was, he had plenty of time to react to it, not counting the fact he was warned.

We don't know, assuming his pants is likely, trying to make a quick escape also likely. Its been said before, but I'll say it again, every shot can be leathal, shooting limbs is nothing but hollywood fantasy, you always shoot to kill, you aim center of mass so you have least chance to miss and inflict the best chance to kill outside of a head shot.


Signature is from Jinrui wa Suitai Shimashit(Humanity as declined)


----------



## Mithos (Mar 29, 2014)

Utopia Realm said:


> Why lie to your father about a guy under your bed and say you don't know him when he has a gun in his hands... Seems to me she panicked, made up a lie and now the kid has lost his life.



She was probably terrified of her father's reaction. If the man rushes into the room with a gun and holds someone at gun point as his first reaction, he's probably pretty scary when he's angry. 

The dad is a psycho and needs to be locked up.


----------



## Noways (Mar 29, 2014)

Matto-sama said:


> The dad is a psycho and needs to be locked up.



No he's not. You enter a house and no one knows who the hell you are, you get warned and still reach for something.

Everyone is going to pull the trigger.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 29, 2014)

LesExit said:


> I think it is cause I don't know what he fully saw when he walked in there....



Article says he saw the boy in bed with his daughter.

I think that's enough to freak most dads out, especially when she claims not to know him.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 30, 2014)

Noways said:


> No he's not. You enter a house and no one knows who the hell you are, you get warned and still reach for something.
> 
> Everyone is going to pull the trigger.



The daughter knew who he was.


----------



## Noways (Mar 30, 2014)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> The daughter knew who he was.



Except, that's not what she said. She said she didn't know who he was and that lie turned her boyfriend immediately into an intruder.


----------



## Shodai (Mar 30, 2014)

Bioness said:


> Arrest the father, this is murder.
> 
> The daughter was stupid, but the father was even dumber.



another top quality nuanced comment from bioness

BRAVO
I
O
N
E
S
S


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 30, 2014)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> The daughter knew who he was.



The daughter lied that she knew him, we are running around in circles. I don't understand why everyone wants to blame the dad when he was the only one acting rational.


----------

