A teenager knocked on the wrong door. Now he’s dead, and the homeowner is accused of murder.

[Conservative65]

Prosecutors said there was a verbal exchange. They also indicated glass was broken.

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

 

[jc456]

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

but you cant just let them walk in.. Hindsight is 20/20..

Oh for sure. That's what I said, if the guy just took a shot without attempting to engage the person. I don't like that at all, and in noway think it should be legal. On the other hand, if the guy confronted the teenager and s/he kept advancing even with a gun pointed at them, then that could be another matter , depending on other factors.

exactly, like was the window busted after initial conversation. If so, that would justify a threat, moving after discussion. It seems our youth believe they are sometimes above respect. See, if indeed it was someone looking for a friend, then why break a window on your friends house? See the conflict there? Is that one really does to a friend's house?

I'm with you in that I don't think we know enough to judge this particular case, but in general, I believe a drunk teenage girl should probably be given the benefit of the doubt before being shot. Don't you? And, I'm quite sure you have been drunk in your lifetime and done things that weren't sane, or courteous. I know I have.

I don't know the time of day, and Sharon Tait was murdered by a woman. So, I really don't care. Again, there isn't enough to go on just yet, but again, the window break is the big piece of this if it's true.

 

[Conservative65]

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.

My State's laws say that a person has the right to not be molested in his/her home or place of business. Those laws go further in saying what someone has the right to do if HE/SHE believes they are.

 

[Pogo]

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

In other words "(the) only thing that matters is if the owner claims to have believed it was happening".

 

[jc456]

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

In other words "(the) only thing that matters is if the owner claims to have believed it was happening".

that what is happening?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.

LOL you don't even understand which laws apply. Castle Doctrine applies here, not stand your ground.


Here's the Mass law

s a general rule in Massachusetts, the right to use force in defense of oneself or another arises only in circumstances where the person using self-defense avails himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat. However, G.L. c. 278, § 8A represents an exception to this rule. The law provides a defense to the occupant of a dwelling house who is charged with causing injury or death to an intruder. In order to qualify for this affirmative defense, the person charged with injuring or killing the intruder must provide the following three things (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present.


So the question is "Would a reasonable person have believed the teenager in question was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone legally living in the house"

My opinion is no. Was the girl screaming "im going to kill you" or anything like that? Did the teenager have a weapon that the homeowner saw?

See, you idiots are stupid, you don't even know the law, in MASS specificially you can't just shoot someone who breaks into your house. They must also present a reasonable danger. Simply breaking into the house isn't presenting a reasonable danger.

The “Castle” Law in Massachusetts

And in fact stupid, Massachusetts has a duty to retreat law, in COMPLETE contrast to a stand your ground law.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

Educate yourself. I mean my God, you have the internet right there at your fingertips.

 

[Pogo]

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years.

You keep repeating that, yet you still havent' answered my earlier questions about 15 y/o being adult size.

I got the age wrong by 2 years, BFD

I've got 2 grandsons that were taller than my 5'8" at age 15.

Lotta growing up commonly happens between 15 and 17.
That's not the point.

The point is, partisan hacks find so little of value in actual facts that they'll just make it up on the spot, and think that's OK.

Bowie described "adult sized" ---- on no evidence whatsoever. You followed up making him 17. Next one would have had him 24, a football linebacker in combat uniform with a cutlass in his teeth carrying an Uzi with a tank behind him.

Y'all are creating myths, I'm skeet shooting.

BLAMMO.

 

[Fang]

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

 

[Conservative65]

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

In other words "(the) only thing that matters is if the owner claims to have believed it was happening".

You damn sure can't make that determination on his/her behalf. You seem to think you can.

 

[Pogo]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Prosecutors said there was a verbal exchange. They also indicated glass was broken.

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

 

[HUGGY]

There is a big difference between "knocking" and glass breaking. Something is seriously missing in the "boys" story. The breaking glass element is missing from the police department's version of events. I wonder why that is? If just the knocking on the door was all that happened one would think the home owner would have already taken out a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Auld Phart]

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years.

You keep repeating that, yet you still havent' answered my earlier questions about 15 y/o being adult size.

I got the age wrong by 2 years, BFD

I've got 2 grandsons that were taller than my 5'8" at age 15.

Lotta growing up commonly happens between 15 and 17.
That's not the point.

The point is, partisan hacks find so little of value in actual facts that they'll just make it up on the spot, and think that's OK.

Bowie described "adult sized" ---- on no evidence whatsoever.

Y'all are creating myths, I'm skeet shooting.

BLAMMO.

You're saying you have skeet for brains?

Good news, even tho it's a small target, you seem to be hitting it every time.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

In other words "(the) only thing that matters is if the owner claims to have believed it was happening".

You damn sure can't make that determination on his/her behalf. You seem to think you can.

Actually, the law itself allows us to make that determination. You can't just say "I was scared" and blast someone and it be legal. You must affirmatively prove that a reasonable person would have feared for their safety.

Please people educate yourselves

 

[Conservative65]

Prosecutors said there was a verbal exchange. They also indicated glass was broken.

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

"because the owner felt the need to do so" doesn't mean shit. The question is "did the owner have a reasonable fear for the safety of anyone who legally lived in the home?"

 

[jc456]

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

"because the owner felt the need to do so" doesn't mean shit. The question is "did the owner have a reasonable fear for the safety of anyone who legally lived in the home?"

IMO, he did if the window break was after the conversation. It is really cut and dried at that point. See, it's the drunk thingy that changes the threat level. Cause of right mind and all of that.

 

[Pogo]

Prosecutors said there was a verbal exchange. They also indicated glass was broken.

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

That's part of the revisionista gun nut fabrication factory. The one that made him an "adult sized 17 year old" armed with lethal words. Nobody specified WHO broke the glass or for what purpose. They just made that up and plugged it in. Because Almighty Gun must be defended at all costs, even a child's life.

Might be interesting to see how many of these wags are also jumping up and down going "abortion is murder". Just sayin'.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

"because the owner felt the need to do so" doesn't mean shit. The question is "did the owner have a reasonable fear for the safety of anyone who legally lived in the home?"

IMO, he did if the window break was after the conversation. It is really cut and dried at that point. See, it's the drunk thingy that changes the threat level. Cause of right mind and all of that.

Your "opinion" totally ignores the applicable state law and is thus irrelevant.

No reasonable person fears for their safety due to a broken fucking window. Thus in Mass the Castle Doctrine does not legally allow a person to shoot someone who breaks a fucking window whilst breaking into their home.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

That's part of the revisionista gun nut fabrication factory. The one that made him an "adult sized 17 year old" armed with lethal words. Nobody specified WHO broke the glass or for what purpose. They just made that up and plugged it in. Because Almighty Gun must be defended at all costs, even a child's life.

Might be interesting to see how many of these wags are also jumping up and down going "abortion is murder". Just sayin'.

Now again, if a person breaks into your home in MASS screaming that they are going to kill you. A reasonable person might fear for their safety, and thus shooting them would be legal.

Has anyone in this thread other than me actually read the applicable state law?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.