http://www.khou.com/news/local/Deputy-constables-Dad-shoots-teen-boy-found-in-daughters-bedroom-250041711.html[/URL] Could this play out like the Florida case.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Deputy-constables-Dad-shoots-teen-boy-found-in-daughters-bedroom-250041711.html Link corrected.
As I've said previously, harmful but non-violent weapons would seem to solve a lot of these problems. From Zimmerman to guy in theater to this. Get pissed off, pull out your non-deadly weapon. Victim might still get seriously injured, but at least not be dead.
Or make 'em use muskets. With society's collective attention span these days, they'll just give up all together.
Keeping the possibility of bias well in mind, if these are indeed the facts of the case, then: 1) The father had the right to shoot the kid. This is Texas. Especially at the point where the daughter said she did not let him in. Defined as an intruder, he is just as good as a target for target practice. Empty the magazine. 2) The daughter was probably lying about the fact she didn't let him in. But was the lie worth the boy's life? 3) The father DEFINITELY had the right to shoot when he started reaching for something. Once again, this is Texas. 4) Borderline, but it could be argued that the father had the right to shoot the kid even IF the daughter stated that she let him in from the beginning. Being a minor, does she has that authorization? Even so, the father still had the right to shoot if he was reaching for something. 5) Something else to consider, the man didn't just shoot him at first sight. He had a discussion with the kid and the kid became aggressive and combative. The father even called the cops. But when the dude reached for something, he had to take him out, for the sake of his family, first and foremost. It's not like he didn't even give him a chance. And to be honest, he didn't have to. The father could have shoot him earlier, at the first moment of indication that he was NOT WELCOME. (Even though the girl obviously was lying.) Conclusion: Based on these facts, no charges should be filed. The teen boy should have known better. It is very sad that he died, and I am by no means saying this is what he deserved. However, with the recent events of the past decade and being what state this incident took place, and knowing the love and protectiveness of the father, close the case, let's all learn a lesson, and let's pray. Pray for the dead teenager, the families of both sides, and the shooter himself, for the pain in his mind may far surpass all others. RIP.
I'd rather take a 9mm personally <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/EP4HjgDpgTs?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/EP4HjgDpgTs?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
So... you were there? Tell us more. One of the key witnesses, who might have a different story from the family, is of course dead. But since you were there, please fill us in! EDIT: For the record, I posted this comment while the thread was still in the Hangout. LOL.
She did not. But crap happens. She should have been honest upfront, it could have changed the outcome. Knowingly of death, or not.
Based on the facts of the article, while keeping the fact that bias is a possibility, in mind. Is that not hard to understand? The father had the right. End of story. Based on the facts of the article.
Am I really expected to believe that during the verbal altercation, the teenager didn't let the father know that he knew his daughter?? And during all this, am I really expected to believe that the daughter, once her dad pulled a gun, did not start saying that she knew the boy too? I understand that tensions were high, but this just seems like it went too far. Hopefully the truth comes out, but regardless, I feel bad for everyone involved.
