Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriendFollow

#152 Mar 17 2014 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but shouldn't police training include the ability to properly discern the situation as well as part of the job to take the risk that if you don't actually SEE a gun then it MAY not be a gun?
Just because my job might get me shot doesn't mean I'm gonna risk getting shot.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#153 Mar 17 2014 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No man wants to see another man with his daughter, regardless of age
Depends, can I put him to work?

Because I expect my daughters to eventually lure some guy into the house who I can sucker into lifting heavy things and such in a feeble attempt to get on my good side.

My parents were thrilled when I got married. They told my husband he could never give me back, they were done with me.
#154 Mar 17 2014 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but shouldn't police training include the ability to properly discern the situation as well as part of the job to take the risk that if you don't actually SEE a gun then it MAY not be a gun?
Just because my job might get me shot doesn't mean I'm gonna risk getting shot.


How far does that mentality go when some kid reaches for a cell phone (BANG OOPS!) or I reach into my pocket to get my ID ready (BANG OOPS!). Shouldn't the person wielding the real weapon have more of an onus to keep a good enough awareness of the situation to avoid these sort of mistakes?
"I feared for my life" could be claimed(and abused) in many situations that could easily have been avoided.
Some people (like this old guy) just didn't have the experience to sit quietly and keep his hands on the steering wheel.. I'm sure many people don't. Does this justify being jumpy and trigger happy and unloading your mag on some person for a simple traffic stop? Shooting first and asking questions later is now the order of the day for LEOs?

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#155 Mar 17 2014 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Where did you get that information? Most sources state that there was an argument, not a "stop while I call the cops".


What kind of argument do you think was going on in that situation?

Quote:
I think you're looking at the dad and not the boy. The boy is skinny. The dad is fat.


In hindsight, that may be the case. I saw the picture with a headline and article that only talked about the teen being shot, with no mention of the father being cared for. Also, the guy on the stretcher had paper bags over his hands, which is normally only done on corpses when they intend to collect DNA evidence from their hands/nails. I've never seen them do that to someone who's alive, but then it's not like I hang out at crime scenes either.

Gbaji wrote:
Yet, no one has yet presented a reason to think the guy was an intruder to rape/kill his daughter.


Except for finding a man in his daughters bedroom and his daughter telling him she didn't know who he was? Unless he's claiming to be the tooth fairy or something, that sorta leaves one reason for him being there.

Gbaji wrote:
Again, it's about what the father knew when he fired. Is he supposed to be a mind reader or something?
Of course not, just use common sense. There was no evidence provided to support the notion that his daughter was being raped and/or assaulted.[/quote]

Other than her telling her father that she didn't know the man in her bedroom at 2AM. You do get that it's not unheard of for rapists to sneak into the bedrooms of women late at night while they're asleep and rape them, right? What do you suppose that would look like to a father who heard said potential rapist sneaking in his daughters window when he goes into her room to investigate? Pretty similar, right? And don't you suppose the just awakened daughter, upon hearing her father yelling at some man in her room might also say something like "I don't know who this guy is!"?

Yeah. More or less exactly what happened here. He had every reason to believe his daughter, and thus every reason to assume this guy wasn't there with her permission, and thus.... well... what do you suppose that leads him to assume?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Uh. As several people have pointed out, the mere presence of someone in the house who the father does not know gives him legal grounds to shot.
I can't believe you would kill a 5 year old!


I wouldn't. Having the legal right to do something doesn't mean you must do that thing.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
If I hear sounds coming from my living room, and I go to investigate and there's someone I've never seen before in my living room, I'm under zero obligation to even engage that person in conversation.
Was this person with a family member or just wandering around alone?


What part of "someone I've never seen before" do you not get?

Quote:
So, does your roommate have to ask your permission to invite their friends? If your roommate invite a friend that you never met, are you authorized to shoot with no questions if you come home and see the person alone, not knowing that your roommate is in the bathroom? Or better yet, if your roommate is watching a game with the stranger and you ask "who's this". If your roommate says "I don't know", are you authorized to kill with no questions?


As I mentioned earlier, I live alone, so it's a much more simple case. But when I did have roommates, guess what? If they had someone stay over, you can damn well bet that I met them prior to going to bed myself, so that I don't wake up in the middle of the night and then wonder who this stranger is in my living room. I lived with two female roommates for years who did date various guys (and occasionally even had them sleep over). Not once did this ever result in me encountering any of these people in the middle of the night after waking up to a noise in the house without having met them earlier.

It's called consideration and respect. I get that this is somewhat lacking among the teen population, but that's about poor judgement on their part, not the fathers. He was put in a situation in which he really had no conclusion to come to other than that he had arrived just in time to save his daughter from an assailant. We can argue about all of the things said and done that lead up to that point, but his reactions were reasonable IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 Mar 17 2014 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but shouldn't police training include the ability to properly discern the situation as well as part of the job to take the risk that if you don't actually SEE a gun then it MAY not be a gun?
Just because my job might get me shot doesn't mean I'm gonna risk getting shot.


How far does that mentality go when some kid reaches for a cell phone (BANG OOPS!) or I reach into my pocket to get my ID ready (BANG OOPS!). Shouldn't the person wielding the real weapon have more of an onus to keep a good enough awareness of the situation to avoid these sort of mistakes?
"I feared for my life" could be claimed(and abused) in many situations that could easily have been avoided.


No. The person who finds himself in a girls bedroom at 2AM, with the girls father pointing a gun at him, should put his damn hands up in the air and stay perfectly still until things calm down. It frankly drives me nuts when I hear about how someone got shot who was "just reaching for his wallet, phone, whatever". Seriously. Someone is angry with you and pointing a gun at you. Don't.... Freaking.... Move.

Oh. And that goes double for LEOs. Same deal. Assuming that the other person can magically tell the difference between you pulling out your phone and someone pulling out a gun is stupid as hell. Assume that the cop cannot tell if you're pulling out a gun. Assume he's going to decide that he can't wait to be sure on the off chance that you are pulling out a gun. Assume he will shoot you. Ergo. Stand perfectly still and keep your hands still and in plain site. It really isn't that complicated, yet it's amazing how many people just have to wave their arms around, and put them in their pockets, and move them behind their backs.

That's how people get shot.

Edited, Mar 17th 2014 4:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Mar 17 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Shouldn't the person wielding the real weapon have more of an onus to keep a good enough awareness of the situation to avoid these sort of mistakes?
Any particular reason one second you're stressing to not move when at gun point, and now you're saying it's okay?

Oh, and I'll counter your cop shoots innocent old man with this.

Edited, Mar 17th 2014 7:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#158 Mar 17 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Shouldn't the person wielding the real weapon have more of an onus to keep a good enough awareness of the situation to avoid these sort of mistakes?
Any particular reason one second you're stressing to not move when at gun point, and now you're saying it's okay?


Good call out. I'm just playing devil's advocate.. Like I said.. I think the cane thing brings a much better debate than this guy shooting an intruder in his home..
I think the point of this poor attempt at a thread hijack is to wonder if LEOs should be held to different standards than people in their homes. I really don't know what I would do in that situation.. as a cop I think there should be a higher standard to when you should use lethal force.. but i think a guy in his own home is a different animal altogether than a cop pulling someone over for an expired tag.. Now I know that they're could be any number of reasons to be jumpy and even trigger happy.. I'm just wondering if this incident wasn't negligence on the officers part when a cane is mistaken for a rifle.

Quote:
Oh, and I'll counter your cop shoots innocent old man with this.


That's a 'good' one.. but it seemed pretty clear that this guy was wielding a rifle.. The cop seemed to be aware that the codger had a gun before he got out and clearly saw the guy charging at his with the rifle drawn and even had time to command him 3 times to put it down. If that guy shot that old man immediately it would have certainly been justified in my opinion.
In this cane incident the guy seemed to have fired before he had a clear situational awareness.

Edited, Mar 17th 2014 7:43pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#159 Mar 17 2014 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
In Maryland; if you have ANY way to escape your house in the case of home invasion then you are expected to run away...
You're in your living room with a gun in your couch and knife wielding men burst in and you have a back door.. RUN AWAY!!!
..but if you are legally justified that you believed that your life was in immediate danger; only then are you justified to shoot.
Far cry from some other states with Stand Your Ground and Cattle Rancher laws.. Smiley: twocents


Yeah. But there's a gap between what the law "could require" and what is going to be enforced in practice. Unless you are a complete idiot and tell the police who arrive on the scene "Well, the guy with the knife just stood there and told us all to leave, and I could have left, but I decided that I didn't want to, so I got my gun and shot him instead", he's going to not be charged. All he has to say is "I was in fear for my life so I shot the intruder".

Done. While we hear a ton of rumbling about the castle doctrine among the politically active (on both sides), the reality is that it's only real use is in the rare occasional case where someone is stupid enough to actually admit to intentionally killing someone when they could have avoided it. It's one of those laws (like stand your ground) though that because the law exists in a given jurisdiction, it's assumed to be in force in every case even when it's not. Stand your ground was irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. It was irrelevant in that other more recent case (cant even remember the guys name). And the castle doctrine is irrelevant in this case. The father said the magic get out of jail free for shooting someone in your home words: I was in fear for my life.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Mar 17 2014 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stand your ground was irrelevant in the Zimmerman case.


I bet that thread was a **** storm.
Almost sorry I missed it.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#161 Mar 17 2014 at 5:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

What kind of argument do you think was going on in that situation?
I would guess that the boy would be arguing that his lying daughter was lying. In any case, you painted a picture as if he just kicked down the door and said "Freeze, don't move". The boy moved and therefore shot. Every source said that there was an escalation to the shooting. Most gun wielding rapists probably don't try to talk it out while hiding their gun, especially if the dad left and came back.

Gbaji wrote:
In hindsight, that may be the case. I saw the picture with a headline and article that only talked about the teen being shot, with no mention of the father being cared for. Also, the guy on the stretcher had paper bags over his hands, which is normally only done on corpses when they intend to collect DNA evidence from their hands/nails. I've never seen them do that to someone who's alive, but then it's not like I hang out at crime scenes either.
The dad went to the hospital for a panic attack. If it were THAT guy in the daughter's bedroom, then the father would have more justification for his actions. The guy is old and fat and at best prowling on under aged girls. Given that the boy actually looked like a boy takes away from the notion that he was sexually assaulting his daughter. That's nothing typical that boys do at 2 am in a full house.

Gbaji wrote:
Except for finding a man in his daughters bedroom and his daughter telling him she didn't know who he was? Unless he's claiming to be the tooth fairy or something, that sorta leaves one reason for him being there.
Read above. Seeing a teenage boy in your teenage daughter's room doesn't mean rape/assault, especially if your daughter has absolutely no sign of distraught or relief that you arrived. Again, if you have to ASK the daughter if she knows him, then she wasn't in a state of mind of being assaulted nor did it appear that she was. Else, he wouldn't have to ask.

Gbaji wrote:
Other than her telling her father that she didn't know the man in her bedroom at 2AM. You do get that it's not unheard of for rapists to sneak into the bedrooms of women late at night while they're asleep and rape them, right?
1. You do realize that most rapes don't occur that way? 2. Probably men after single adult women, not 17 year old boys after 16 year old girls in a single floor house in the middle of the night with her parents feet away.

Gbaji wrote:
What do you suppose that would look like to a father who heard said potential rapist sneaking in his daughters window when he goes into her room to investigate? Pretty similar, right? And don't you suppose the just awakened daughter, upon hearing her father yelling at some man in her room might also say something like "I don't know who this guy is!"?

Yeah. More or less exactly what happened here. He had every reason to believe his daughter, and thus every reason to assume this guy wasn't there with her permission, and thus.... well... what do you suppose that leads him to assume?
After not hearing any crying, shouting, requesting for help or any attempt to run away or show any sign of relief that I was there, I would assume that she was lying, given the age of the boy, lack of a weapon or any sign of a struggle. Plus, he wasn't told that a rapist came in from the room, he was told that someone was in the room.

Gbaji wrote:

I wouldn't. Having the legal right to do something doesn't mean you must do that thing.
Which is exactly my point.

Gbaji wrote:

What part of "someone I've never seen before" do you not get?
Everything else in the story to support the fact that she was lying. You can't pick out one fact and ignore everything that contradicts it. The girl showed absolutely no sign that she was in danger at all. The boy showed no sign that he had a weapon. All of those details aren't trumped by her obvious lie. If you had to ask her, then the scenario wasn't obvious.

Gbaji wrote:
If they had someone stay over


I didn't say anything about staying over.

Here's the issue. You make blanket comments like "If I don't know the person, then I don't have to ask questions", but when I present scenarios where that's obviously wrong, you want to put stuff in context. Yet, you don't want to put everything in context while discussing this. If you have to ask, then it isn't evident.


#162 Mar 17 2014 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Alma wrote:
In any case, you painted a picture as if he just kicked down the door and said "Freeze, don't move". The boy moved and therefore shot.


Minimum safe distance for a knife attack is 21 feet at which distance can happen in 1.5 seconds! Smiley: schooled

How big do you think that bedroom was?

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#163 Mar 17 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Alma wrote:
In any case, you painted a picture as if he just kicked down the door and said "Freeze, don't move". The boy moved and therefore shot.


Minimum safe distance for a knife attack is 21 feet at which distance can happen in 1.5 seconds! Smiley: schooled

How big do you think that bedroom was?



That's ninja work.. The US is lazy... that's why we use guns.. a lot easier to kill someone from 21 feet with a gun as opposed to a knife.
#164 Mar 17 2014 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Minimum safe distance for a knife attack is 21 feet at which distance can happen in 1.5 seconds! Smiley: schooled

How big do you think that bedroom was?

That's ninja work.. The US is lazy... that's why we use guns.. a lot easier to kill someone from 21 feet with a gun as opposed to a knife.



It's not ninja work; it's doesn't take that long to run 20 feet.. if being lazy is to shoot someone trying to stab you instead of.. what.. having a sword fight? then call me lazy.
The point is; that even at 20ft away someone can run at you with a knife and kill you way faster than the average time that it takes to draw a gun, aim, and shoot. 20 ft.

Now take than into account with a 17 year old youth standing directly in front of you with a possible weapon.. Do you take the chance that they may physically whip your *** and possibly injure/kill you with a weapon or even take your weapon?
If you are going to say that the guy shouldn't have had a gun to protect his household.. well that just doesn't fly.. because that kid could have still done damage to the guy whether or not if the father had a knife or a frying pan..

Edited, Mar 17th 2014 8:49pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#165 Mar 17 2014 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kelv wrote:
It's not ninja work; it's doesn't take that long to run 20 feet.. if being lazy is to shoot someone trying to stab you instead of.. what.. having a sword fight? then call me lazy.
The point is; that even at 20ft away someone can run at you with a knife and kill you way faster than the average time that it takes to draw a gun, aim, and shoot. 20 ft.


Lazy in the sense that it takes much more effort to kill with a knife in most scenarios than an average hand gun. Of course it takes knowledge on how to use a firearm, but once that knowledge is obtained, it's much more efficient to use a firearm than a knife. That is, unless you're a ninja.

Kelv wrote:
Now take than into account with a 17 year old youth standing directly in front of you with a possible weapon.. Do you take the chance that they may physically whip your *** and possibly injure/kill you with a weapon or even take your weapon?


If he had assaulted/threatened his daughter with a weapon, it would already be out, not hidden. Also, if it's true that the dad left the room and came back with a gun, the boy had plenty of time to not only run, but to attack or at least prepare for a fight. He's dumb for not leaving, but that only supports the notion that he didn't pose a threat. Furthermore, when the father came back with the gun, he didn't have to draw the weapon, because he was already ready to kill, especially if he was aiming the gun to the boy's head. It would literally take a ninja to run and stab someone in that situation.

Kelv wrote:
If you are going to say that the guy shouldn't have had a gun to protect his household.. well that just doesn't fly.. because that kid could have still done damage to the guy whether or not if the father had a knife or a frying pan..
I'm not sure how you thought any of that. I'm saying that the scenario did not present the child as any threat to justify shooting him in the head.
#166 Mar 17 2014 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I would guess that the boy would be arguing that his lying daughter was lying. In any case, you painted a picture as if he just kicked down the door and said "Freeze, don't move". The boy moved and therefore shot. Every source said that there was an escalation to the shooting.


Except the source you linked in the OP, or the source that link links. In fact, not only do those sources not mention any escalation, but they very much support the "Freeze, don't move" scenario you're dismissing so quickly:

Quote:
He was told someone was in his 16-year-old daughter's bedroom and he grabbed his gun.

He reportedly found the teen in bed with his daughter and confronted him. His daughter apparently told him she did not know the boy.

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. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she snuck her boyfriend, 17, into the house, the report said.


Quote:
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.

The confrontation occurred around 2:20 a.m. The father had a gun and asked the teen to identify himself, police said, according to the report. His daughter reportedly told her father that she did not know the teen and that the two were not in bed.

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. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she did indeed know the teen, the report said.


Want to know what these both have in common?

1. The father did enter the room with his firearm (something you claimed wasn't correct, suggesting that they had a longer conversation and then he got his gun and shot the teen).

2. The father did tell him not to move.

These are completely consistent with what someone would do if they believed that the man they found in their daughters bedroom was a stranger who was potentially attempting to rape her.

Quote:
Most gun wielding rapists probably don't try to talk it out while hiding their gun, especially if the dad left and came back.


First off, he could have had a knife instead of a gun and still been a threat. Secondly, you're inventing this idea that the dad left and came back with the gun. That's directly contradicted by both of the stories.


And yeah, people who are armed in some way quite often conceal this fact. Doubly so when there someone else who is armed and pointing that weapon at them. If some guy has a gun hidden in his pocket, and you burst into the room and point a gun at him and demand to know who he is and what he's doing in your house, he's going to wait until he can get an opportunity to pull his gun out and shoot you. And that's absolutely going to involve him spinning any BS story he can in order to get you to point the gun somewhere else just long enough for him to get his out and shoot you.

And that guy claiming that he's your daughters boyfriend while she's insisting she doesn't know him at all might be exactly what some would be rapist would claim in order to get you to drop your guard. Cause maybe you wont believe your daughter. Maybe he can put just enough doubt into your mind about the innocence of your daughter that you'll turn and start questioning her, and maybe take your eyes off him just long enough.

Seriously. If the guy had been a rapist, who had just entered the girls room, and had just put a knife to her throat and told her to be quiet, or he'll kill her, and the father bursts in with a gun right at that moment, what do you think he'd say? You think he'd admit what he was doing? Or do you think he'd lie?

Quote:
The dad went to the hospital for a panic attack. If it were THAT guy in the daughter's bedroom, then the father would have more justification for his actions. The guy is old and fat and at best prowling on under aged girls. Given that the boy actually looked like a boy takes away from the notion that he was sexually assaulting his daughter. That's nothing typical that boys do at 2 am in a full house.


Rapists come in all sizes and shapes. I was just countering the idea that the boy was a "child". I saw the picture and thought it was odd that the person was on a stretcher that looked to be being put into an ambulance and thought that was strange. But then I read the article and realized that while it said he was "fatally shot", it didn't say he died right away, so I thought maybe they treated him for the gunshot wound and he later died. I briefly considered that it was the father, but the article accompanying the photo didn't mention the father requiring any treatment, and the whole "bags wrapped on his hands" thing was strange. I suppose maybe it's sop or something. Need to verify that he fired the gun and not the girl for example? Dunno.

In any case, it's not super relevant to the issue. The man in the room not being a big guy doesn't make him any less a potential rapist.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Except for finding a man in his daughters bedroom and his daughter telling him she didn't know who he was? Unless he's claiming to be the tooth fairy or something, that sorta leaves one reason for him being there.
Read above. Seeing a teenage boy in your teenage daughter's room doesn't mean rape/assault, especially if your daughter has absolutely no sign of distraught or relief that you arrived. Again, if you have to ASK the daughter if she knows him, then she wasn't in a state of mind of being assaulted nor did it appear that she was. Else, he wouldn't have to ask.


Again though, you're injecting your own assumptions into the events. Where did you read that the daughter showed no sign of being distraught? You're making up "facts" to support your position.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Other than her telling her father that she didn't know the man in her bedroom at 2AM. You do get that it's not unheard of for rapists to sneak into the bedrooms of women late at night while they're asleep and rape them, right?
1. You do realize that most rapes don't occur that way?


So? Some do. You honestly think the father should stop and assume his daughter must be lying about this guy in her room being a stranger because of crime statistics? Um... And remember that he's not going to know the age of the person in his daughters room, so let's stop assuming that "rapes by 17 year olds are rare" is even remotely a reasonable argument to make.

Quote:
After not hearing any crying, shouting, requesting for help or any attempt to run away or show any sign of relief that I was there, I would assume that she was lying, given the age of the boy, lack of a weapon or any sign of a struggle. Plus, he wasn't told that a rapist came in from the room, he was told that someone was in the room.


Huh? Again, how do you know she didn't do those things? How do you know her immediate reaction to your bursting into the room was to run up to you and start screaming about how she doesn't know this strange man in her bedroom? You don't know. The news articles don't say. Don't assume information that isn't actually written down.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I wouldn't. Having the legal right to do something doesn't mean you must do that thing.
Which is exactly my point.


So your point was to admit that I was 100% correct when I said he had a legal right to shoot the teen? Um... great!

[quote]
Gbaji wrote:
If they had someone stay over


I didn't say anything about staying over.[/quote]

Then what the hell are they doing in my house at 2AM, when everyone is presumably asleep? Your nutty scenarios don't make any sense at all. How the hell is it possible for me to wake up in the middle of the night, hear noises in my living room, go and investigate and find only a person I have never met before, with no clue who that person is, how they got into my living room, or what they're doing there unless that person is an intruder? If I wake up and hear sounds in the living room, and my roommates are up watching TV or playing poker and there's also someone I don't know, there, I'm not going to shoot that person because my roommates are right there with the person. Unless, of course, when I walk into the living room, all of my roommates jump up and proclaim that they don't know this person in the room with them, and thank god that I woke up and have my gun so we can deal with this stranger in our home.

In that case, if that person now makes some sudden move, I'm going to shoot him. Want to know why? Because by telling me that they don't know the person my assumption is that they wouldn't allow him to be in the house at all unless he was armed in some way and threatened them if they didn't let him watch TV or play poker with them, or whatever. Point being that given the assumed lack of loud screaming coming from the bedroom, when the daughter told her father she didn't know the man, she was also more or less saying "he's armed and threatened me if I screamed". So yeah. That's going to put the father on high alert.


Now maybe *you* would first assume your daughter was lying to you, but I think most parents would err on the side of protecting their family. Which is what this guy did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Mar 17 2014 at 11:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
This is the worst thread I've ever skimmed through. One would think the topic would have changed to fast food french fries or something by now.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#168 Mar 18 2014 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Just because my job might get me shot doesn't mean I'm gonna risk getting shot.


Cowards shouldn't be in the military. Join the ******* boy scouts or something.
#169 Mar 18 2014 at 4:09 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
This is the worst thread I've ever skimmed through. One would think the topic would have changed to fast food french fries or something by now.
Wait a few weeks. Alma will make a new thread and that'll be the worst thread you've ever skimmed through.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#170 Mar 18 2014 at 6:14 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
So your point was to admit that I was 100% correct when I said he had a legal right to shoot the teen? Um... great!


That was never the point. If you actually read the thread before posting, you would know that. I specifically pointed that out several times.
Gbaji wrote:
Except the source you linked in the OP, or the source that link links. In fact, not only do those sources not mention any escalation, but they very much support the "Freeze, don't move" scenario you're dismissing so quickly:

Gbaji wrote:
Want to know what these both have in common?

1. The father did enter the room with his firearm (something you claimed wasn't correct, suggesting that they had a longer conversation and then he got his gun and shot the teen).

2. The father did tell him not to move.

These are completely consistent with what someone would do if they believed that the man they found in their daughters bedroom was a stranger who was potentially attempting to rape her.



I posted several links where it mentioned escalation and we already had the discussion on this. I also stated that they were conflicting, but the majority supports the escalation.

Gbaji wrote:
First off, he could have had a knife instead of a gun and still been a threat. Secondly, you're inventing this idea that the dad left and came back with the gun. That's directly contradicted by both of the stories.


1. Which would have been used to rape his daughter, not tucked away hidden.
2. NOt my fault you fail to pay attention
Gbaji wrote:
And yeah, people who are armed in some way quite often conceal this fact. Doubly so when there someone else who is armed and pointing that weapon at them. If some guy has a gun hidden in his pocket, and you burst into the room and point a gun at him and demand to know who he is and what he's doing in your house, he's going to wait until he can get an opportunity to pull his gun out and shoot you. And that's absolutely going to involve him spinning any BS story he can in order to get you to point the gun somewhere else just long enough for him to get his out and shoot you.


I literally laughed out loud. The boy would have had his weapon out to assault the girl
Gbaji wrote:
And that guy claiming that he's your daughters boyfriend while she's insisting she doesn't know him at all might be exactly what some would be rapist would claim in order to get you to drop your guard. Cause maybe you wont believe your daughter. Maybe he can put just enough doubt into your mind about the innocence of your daughter that you'll turn and start questioning her, and maybe take your eyes off him just long enough.

Seriously. If the guy had been a rapist, who had just entered the girls room, and had just put a knife to her throat and told her to be quiet, or he'll kill her, and the father bursts in with a gun right at that moment, what do you think he'd say? You think he'd admit what he was doing? Or do you think he'd lie?


There would have been much more drama. Either she would have agreed to knowing him out of fear of her life or she would have panicked, saying no. If the father had to ask her, then it wasn't obvious.
Gbaji wrote:
Rapists come in all sizes and shapes. I was just countering the idea that the boy was a "child". I saw the picture and thought it was odd that the person was on a stretcher that looked to be being put into an ambulance and thought that was strange. But then I read the article and realized that while it said he was "fatally shot", it didn't say he died right away, so I thought maybe they treated him for the gunshot wound and he later died. I briefly considered that it was the father, but the article accompanying the photo didn't mention the father requiring any treatment, and the whole "bags wrapped on his hands" thing was strange. I suppose maybe it's sop or something. Need to verify that he fired the gun and not the girl for example? Dunno.

In any case, it's not super relevant to the issue. The man in the room not being a big guy doesn't make him any less a potential rapist.


Gbaji wrote:
So? Some do. You honestly think the father should stop and assume his daughter must be lying about this guy in her room being a stranger because of crime statistics? Um... And remember that he's not going to know the age of the person in his daughters room, so let's stop assuming that "rapes by 17 year olds are rare" is even remotely a reasonable argument to make.




Of course, they do, but common sense says that a teenage boy in your teenage girls room at 2 am in a full house is not some random rapist. I'll concede to the point that he might have had other thoughts in his head, but that's how most rapes happen, not by random people. You can't use the size of the father, when you thought it was the boy, as a reason to be scared, but then scuff at the fact that he actually looks like a teen. The fact that the boy *may* look like someone she would date makes a big difference.
Gbaji wrote:
Again though, you're injecting your own assumptions into the events. Where did you read that the daughter showed no sign of being distraught? You're making up "facts" to support your position.


Gbaji wrote:
Huh? Again, how do you know she didn't do those things? How do you know her immediate reaction to your bursting into the room was to run up to you and start screaming about how she doesn't know this strange man in her bedroom? You don't know. The news articles don't say. Don't assume information that isn't actually written down.


If it's not mentioned, then it either didn't happen or people are intentionally leaving out important facts. Given the fact that we know that she lied about them dating, it makes absolutely no sense for her to be crying, shouting, screaming for help, struggling, etc., unless she was actually being assaulted. Since she had no intention of being caught, there was no need to do any of that unless 'twas a set up from the start.
Gbaji wrote:
Then what the hell are they doing in my house at 2AM, when everyone is presumably asleep?

What is sex/make out? Don't need to stay over for that. The boy came over at 2AM because they knew that the parents would be sleep. The point is not getting caught. If the boy stayed over, he runs the risk of someone waking up. Do you think they would be able to pull that off at 2 pm? That's the common sense that should go through your head when you see a teenage boy in your teenage daughter's room.
Gbaji wrote:
Your nutty scenarios don't make any sense at all. How the hell is it possible for me to wake up in the middle of the night, hear noises in my living room, go and investigate and find only a person I have never met before, with no clue who that person is, how they got into my living room, or what they're doing there unless that person is an intruder? If I wake up and hear sounds in the living room, and my roommates are up watching TV or playing poker and there's also someone I don't know, there, I'm not going to shoot that person because my roommates are right there with the person. Unless, of course, when I walk into the living room, all of my roommates jump up and proclaim that they don't know this person in the room with them, and thank god that I woke up and have my gun so we can deal with this stranger in our home.


Of course they don't make sense, yet somehow you claim they do for this instance. If your roommates are sitting right next to the guy who who they claim is a stranger, watching the game and sharing food, it becomes more difficult to believe that they don't know each other. That's completely different than a scenario where the stranger is lurking in the shadows.
Gbaji wrote:
In that case, if that person now makes some sudden move, I'm going to shoot him. Want to know why? Because by telling me that they don't know the person my assumption is that they wouldn't allow him to be in the house at all unless he was armed in some way and threatened them if they didn't let him watch TV or play poker with them, or whatever. Point being that given the assumed lack of loud screaming coming from the bedroom, when the daughter told her father she didn't know the man, she was also more or less saying "he's armed and threatened me if I screamed". So yeah. That's going to put the father on high alert.

Not when the dad comes in with the gun. If he had to ask, then it wasn't obvious.
[quote=Gbaji]Now maybe *you* would first assume your daughter was lying to you, but I think most parents would err on the side of protecting their family. Which is what this guy did.[/quote]

And I would be right, with an live boy banned from my house and a grounded daughter, not facing time in court. Whatever suits your fancy. You know when you see the woman on the news saying that her baby is innocent, even though there's ton of evidence saying otherwise?... yea.... No parent likes to think negatively of their child, but when you catch them with their hands in the cookie jar, you can't ignore all of the facts.
#171 Mar 18 2014 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Quote:
Join the @#%^ing boy scouts or something.
Guaranteed response.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#172 Mar 18 2014 at 7:00 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Quote:
Join the @#%^ing boy scouts or something.
Guaranteed response.

Smiley: nod
#173 Mar 18 2014 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
Quote:
Join the @#%^ing boy scouts or something.
Guaranteed response.


This **** again? You are a wimp, you know that?

Next time you post this, as you obviously will in response to this post, I'm going to take it as permission to monologue under the paper-thin pretense of talking to you. I'll enjoy it, but no one else will. Just like all of my posts.
#174 Mar 18 2014 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Guaranteed response.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#175 Mar 18 2014 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Hand in your Liberal card. You've joined us on the conservative dark side. There's no cookies/cake in the corner, because you need to pay for that sh*t yourself.

Done and done this election day...

Screenshot

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#176 Mar 18 2014 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Now maybe *you* would first assume your daughter was lying to you, but I think most parents would err on the side of protecting their family. Which is what this guy did.

And I would be right, with an live boy banned from my house and a grounded daughter, not facing time in court. Whatever suits your fancy. You know when you see the woman on the news saying that her baby is innocent, even though there's ton of evidence saying otherwise?... yea.... No parent likes to think negatively of their child, but when you catch them with their hands in the cookie jar, you can't ignore all of the facts.


In this case, after the fact, sure. But if you were wrong, then what? Guy pulls his gun out from under the covers. Kills you. Kills your other children. Rapes and kills your daughter. Good job protecting your family there numbnuts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 304 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (304)