Man shoots unarmed black juvenile stealing from car, no charges pending

Sucks that a kid died, but thieves know the risks involved with stealing.
The law is intended to protect the welfare and lives of the victims.

 

The man had the right to shoot the kid. Legally, yes. Morally, debatable. He probably didn't know he was 13 years old. Some younger kids can be pretty tall and stout. Additionally, with the recent events of the world, the man probably was in fear of his life as well. People will kill over $2 for drugs.

I do feel terrible for the kid. Criminal activity is probably all he ever knew. We do not know the circumstances surrounding his upbringing. It is a tragic situation all around, but we cannot point the finger at the owner of the property. I guarantee you that no one feels worse at the moment then the shooter.

RIP little dude. I hope the shooter finds peace within himself as well.

Really tough. Really sad.

 

And this is why gun control needs to be ramped up. There are people who will shoot you just for looking inside their car.

 

It's much better if people are defenseless against those who would victimize them, right?

 

I don't see anything wrong with this. Do society a favor and take out the other two criminals that were with him too.

 

Someone stole my $9 cheap iPhone charger from my car 2 weeks ago. Should I have shot him?

 

What does the law state about protection of property?

In Texas, unless the laws have changed, a CHL holder can shoot after dark to protect property.

There are laws to protect the law abiding citizens as well as criminals.

 

Glad your daughter was safe.

However...What is the age cutoff for being dangerous again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...of-playground-murder_55ea0d2be4b03784e275f855


http://www.macon.com/news/local/crime/article41678337.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/09/13-year-old_convicted_of_murde.html

 

Could you have or should you have?

 

Pretty much says it all.

 

SMH to anyone who thinks saying that he shouldn't have been shot and killed for a non-violent act is defending him.

He should face consequences for his actions, but those consequences shouldn't be death.

 

Of course she is safe. Luckily most people aren't so derranged that they would kill a adolescent person for illegally trespassing into their car in a non-violent manner.

So, are you saying you think there should be no age cutoff for when it would be inappropriate to kill a kid engaged in non-violent theft?

 

I don't know if I could have assuming I had a gun and caught him in my car. I certainly wouldn't shoot someone for stealing $9. I would like to think I would only shoot someone if it was a life or death situation, but having never been in a situation where someone is say - stealing my car I wouldn't know.

What would you have done in that situation assuming you had a gun, the perp just took your charger and was getting out of your car with it?

 

100% false.

Any ways if people are alright with this then they should be alright with kids getting the death penalty for stealing digital media.

 

Most people aren't so deranged, but libs want to limit gun rights for all.

No, those are words you are trying to put in my mouth. I'm asking you a question for which I'd appreciate an answer.

 

Not even close to a fair comparison.

 

I do have a gun and am licensed CHL, just renewed for the third time, so I've been carrying for quite some time.
Personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone for property, but I know I have the right to if it is after sundown and before sunrise in Texas.

 

I definitely disagree with those who want to do so.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am reiterating my question since you responded to it with a question instead of an answer.

If you would like to answer my question then I will be more than happy to answer yours.

 

It might have made the world a better place if you had, but as always, that decision is up to the victim. I probably wouldn't shoot someone over an IPhone charger unless they vandalized my car to get in but it is still theft and when you choose to be a thief, you are risking death every single time. The way I see it, every time a thief gets shot, it's nothing more than a crime prevention measure.

 

That would be up to the victim of the nonviolent crime if he is within the rights of the law. The criminal can choose to do the crime, but he can't choose his punishment if he gets caught. He chose to steal from the wrong person. He chose unwisely twice.