KHOU.com: "Deputies: Dad fatally shoots teen boy daughter snuck into her bedroom"

[twa]

 

Anyway, this family might have to move because it will be hell for the daughter who apparently lied and got one of her classmates killed.

 

I don't think they were classmates,but since they had just moved in they might still have stuff packed.

[Dan T.]

This is nothing more or less than another case where reckless use of a gun results in the loss of an innocent life.

[twa]

But, funny, I don't think I have the right to order people to do things, and kill them for not doing what I tell them.

 

 

You would be wrong in this case

[Larry]

You would be wrong in this case

Stop typing.

[twa]

Stop typing.

 

Reality bothering you?

[Commander PK]

 

"As a mom, I just can't imagine," said Letica Field. "I know the dad was trying to protect the family, but he should have let the authorities handle it."

 

 

Why?  Why should he have let the authorities handle it?  He cannot take an action to "protect" his family in his own home before the cops show up?  As far as he knows, maybe he is a hostage or shot himself before the cops show up. 

 

The boy is dead, because the father's daughter was a coward and lied to him.  Now she has that boy's death on her conscience for the rest of her life, because she was scared of what her father might do because she brought a boy into her room under his roof.

 

Strictly to the shooting itself, the father has a "stranger" in his daughter's bedroom, (which means the boy has no business being there) who then argues with him after he already sees that the girl's father is armed?  (Not smart) and then makes some kind of movement that leads the father to believe he could be armed himself after he was told not to move by an armed man.  (Also, not smart) yet some still blame the dad.

 

 

 

[Larry]

Reality bothering you?

Blam.

Strictly to the shooting itself, the father has a "stranger" in his daughter's bedroom, (which means the boy has no business being there) who then argues with him after he already sees that the girl's father is armed? (Not smart) and then makes some kind of movement that leads the father to believe he could be armed himself after he was told not to move by an armed man. (Also, not smart) yet some still blame the dad.

Yeah, it's weird, the way it is.

A guy with a gun shoots an unarmed kid.

And some people have, like, this instinct, to blame the person who pulled the trigger, instead of the person who got shot.

Weird.

[Commander PK]

This is nothing more or less than another case where reckless use of a gun results in the loss of an innocent life.

 

This is just another case of just because a person died, that does not make the shooter automatically and unquestionably guilty of murder. 

 

that boy (stranger) was in his home, in his daughter's bedroom, and was arguing with him and making questionable movements.

 

I wonder what it would take for some of you to admit that sometimes shooting and killing someone, while still a tragic loss of life, could still be justifiable under the circumstances. 

A guy with a gun shoots an unarmed kid.

And some people have, like, this instinct, to blame the person who pulled the trigger, instead of the person who got shot.

Weird.

 

Larry, if that was your home and your daughter under those same circumstances, what would you have done?

You don't know who that 17 year old is, he is in your daughter's bedroom, and he is arguing with you and making sudden movements after you told him to stand still.  (you are armed, and he knows you are armed)

[twa]

Blam.

Yeah, it's weird, the way it is.

A guy with a gun shoots an unarmed kid.

And some people have, like, this instinct, to blame the person who pulled the trigger, instead of the person who got shot.

Weird.

 

 

Just a innocent child ....playing ninja perhaps

[KevinthePRF]

Don't misunderstand. I blame the daughter first on this one.

But I don't blame the dad at all. I'd do the exact same thing

Agree to disagree. I think the term "responsible gun owner" should be held to a higher standard.

[twa]

Agree to disagree. I think the term "responsible gun owner" should be held to a higher standard.

 

a single shot to the head is a pretty good standard

[Destino]

He thought an unknown person was attacking his daughter.

No. I don't blame him at all

Is agree with that if he's been shot in the act as opposed to following a discussion because the kid moved his hands.

[KevinthePRF]

If I'm pointing a gun at you and tell you not to move and you do....only one idiot will die though

 

at that point her lie isn't paramount.....your choice is

It is my opinion owning a gun does not equate being a cop.

[Bubble Screen]

Why is Larry ALWAYS on the wrong side of every incident like this?

Ok, wait, he was right about Dunn. Then again, that was an open and shut case.

[Destino]

I wonder what it would take for some of you to admit that sometimes shooting and killing someone, while still a tragic loss of life, could still be justifiable under the circumstances.

Is anyone arguing this is justifiable? That's insane. It may be justifiable for the father but the daughters action make the loss of life here completely wrong. Like I said before something doesn't add up and but the question is really who is to blame, dad or daughter. One if them acted wrongly and a boy lost his life. There is no option based on the report where they are both acted justifiably.

And please stop with the sudden movement crap. Save that kind of obvious bull**** for when a "hero" needs to get away with it. It's a dubious claim in the best of circumstances.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Ah, got it. 

 

He moved, therefore he is more to blame than the person who pulled the trigger. 

As you stated, you are not a parent, especially one of a girl (I am - she's only 6 now).  Unless you are a father of a little girl, there is no way I can explain the bond and protection instincts that go along with it.  Let's just say as a teenage boy, with raging hormones, regardless of my rational thinking, even in heated situations like that, I didn't get it either, until I became a father of a little girl.

 

Second, the father/mother are the home owners, not the daughter.  The daughter, irrationally opened the door for the boy to come in and snuck him into her room and closed the door.  The father and brother had no idea who the kid was and that he had been invited into the house by the daughter.

 

Third, the daughter tells the father after the brother catches the boy in her room, that she doesn't know the boy.  

- At this point the father is acting based on assuming this boy is an intruder in his home

- It's in his daughter's bedroom, potentially trying to violate/harm/assault his baby girl

- He calls the police and I assume has a gun pointed on the kid

 

Fourth, still thinking that the guy is a legit intruder, trying to harm his daughter he claims the boy reached in his pockets, possibly going for some sort of weapon.  He fires, hits the boy, killing him.

 

It turns out the boy was unarmed and they eventually learn the girl let the boy in behind her parents backs.  He acted based on the word of his daughter and the fact the boy possessed a threat to his family and himself.  He reacted.  Further reading, he said he didn't feel good and wanted to go to the hospital, most likely because after he learned that the daughter lied and let the kid in, he had shot an unarmed kid.  

 

Nobody wins in these situations.  But, unlike the Travon Martin case, he shot and killed someone while believing they were an intruder inside his home and threat to his family and himself.  

 

Its a very difficult situation to be placed in, the daughter is definitely to blame.  But the boy does too, like I said before, need to think things through before trying to walk into a man's house and screw their daughter.  I'm not saying he deserved to die, its horrible.  But in today's world, people are ****ing nuts and will shoot you for $10, what do you think is going to happen if you go into their house in the middle of the night and they think you're an intruder.  

 

The main blame goes on the daughter though, without a doubt.

[Commander PK]

Agree to disagree. I think the term "responsible gun owner" should be held to a higher standard.

 

 

I think for some the term "resonsible gun owner" means under zero circumstances, unless the shooter is a nanosecond away from gasping his last breath on this earth should he use that gun.

and please stop with the sudden movement crap. Save that kind of obvious bull**** for when a "hero" needs to get away with it. It's a dubious claim in the best of circumstances.

 

Your obvious hatred of all things law enforcment comes through again.  I give you points for consistency if nothing else. 

[KevinthePRF]

a single shot to the head is a pretty good standard

Out of morbid curiosity, where does your line exist between justified homicide and manslaughter? It's clearly nowhere near mine, but I can't help but ask.

[twa]

It is my opinion owning a gun does not equate being a cop.

 

No, however that changes somewhat on your property.

The father is judged on his rights and responsibilities FROM his perspective.....which was a unknown intruder in his home at night.

 

He is perfectly equivalent to a cop facing a threat ,even due more leeway 

[Larry]

This is just another case of just because a person died, that does not make the shooter automatically and unquestionably guilty of murder.

Wow. You really put that person who claimed that Daddy was "automatically and unquestionably guilty of murder" in his place.

Could you quote his post? Cause I must have missed it, in between all of the numerous people who are repeatedly claiming that the person who pulled the trigger has less guilt that "moving without permission", or even no blame at all.

 

that boy (stranger) was in his home, in his daughter's bedroom, and was arguing with him and making questionable movements.

 

Oh.  "Making questionable movements". 

 

Heck, that's just as good as "he had a gun", isn't it? 

 

 

I wonder what it would take for some of you to admit that sometimes shooting and killing someone, while still a tragic loss of life, could still be justifiable under the circumstances. 

 

 

Circumstances in which it's justifiable? 

 

(Hint:  "Talking back", and "moving" aren't on that list.) 

 

----------

 

However, I think it's becoming plain what it would take for you to admit that the person who pulls the trigger is responsible for where the bullet goes. 

 

The person who got killed must have done absolutely nothing that you can object to, after the fact. 

[Commander PK]

"I realize the man had been chased with a knife...but he didn't have to shoot him."

 

"I realize the man had a stranger in his daughter's bedroom...but he didn't have to shoot him."

 

"I relalize the man didn't speak English, (the shooter did not know this) and he reached behind him despite warnings not to....but he didn't have to shoot him." 

 

"I realize the man was half his age and he did assault him...but he didn't have to shoot him."

 

Maybe once in a while, he DID have to shoot him, or possibly end up dead himself. 

[Larry]

I think for some the term "resonsible gun owner" means under zero circumstances, unless the shooter is a nanosecond away from gasping his last breath on this earth should he use that gun.

Of course, not one person in this thread has made that claim.

Whereas several people have claimed that Daddy was perfectly justified.

Now, which side of this argument is staking out unreasonable, absolute, positions?

"I realize the man had been chased with a knife...but he didn't have to shoot him."

 

"I realize the man had a stranger in his daughter's bedroom...but he didn't have to shoot him."

 

"I relalize the man didn't speak English, (the shooter did not know this) and he reached behind him despite warnings not to....but he didn't have to shoot him." 

 

"I realize the man was half his age and he did assault him...but he didn't have to shoot him."

 

Maybe once in a while, he DID have to shoot him, or possibly end up dead himself.

I realize you're making **** up because you're trying to defend something terrible, but you don't have to shovel so hard.

 

[Commander PK]

. 

 

The person who got killed must have done absolutely nothing that you can object to, after the fact. 

 

not true.

 

The person must be proved to not have done anything that could cause a reasonble person to feel they should be in fear for their life under the same circumstances.  (circumstances that can be proven)

 

and while nobody may have said the word murder, it is pretty evident what some people think.  Another gun owner gone bonkers. 

[twa]

Out of morbid curiosity, where does your line exist between justified homicide and manslaughter? It's clearly nowhere near mine, but I can't help but ask.

 

Did they need killing is my usual.

 

in this case a justified perception of a intruder(assumed a threat) allowed the threat of deadly force and a order to not move till the police arrive.....moving was a bad choice.

 

now if ya can show the father shot him for simply being there I might go with manslaughter.....your burden

[Kilmer17]

Again, as a father I think his actions are completely justified.

I also understand that those without daughters may not understand how I can feel that way

The boy has to bear some blame though. As do his parents.

Not as much as the lying daughter, but he wasn't in the room against his will