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

[Commander PK]

Yes, I think the person claiming self defense has the burden on him to at least have more evidence for, than against. (As I understand it, that's actually what the law says. But I'm not a lawyer.)

 

I appreciate your whole response, but specifically to this point you made...you do realize most of the time that is near impossible right? 

 

How can a person who claims self-defense prove what was said when the other party dies.

 

so when faced with that situation, the authorities must look for physical evidence.  If you find none that points the other way...what are you to do then?

 

I believe it is better that a guilty man should go free, than an innocent man should go to prison, and I believe in the right to bear arms.   

SO

 

Inevitably, you will get some people under those conditions who are lying and will get away with murder.  I would not trade my rights (or yours) to have it any other way. 

[twa]

I just read that whole thing, and I'm not sure she knows where she stands on this at all.  She said one thing, then presents a situation where it could be justified (wishing she had a gun in that moment)...but also stating she is against people even owning a gun in their own home...at all...period. 

 

Jeebus...all over the map.  Seems to me she is trying to make this right in her head, and she can't do that, because no matter how it plays out...it sucks.

 

Sometimes things just are what they are.

 

Women   

 

things generally suck the more bad choices that are made....and there were a number here.

[Bang]

And if he thought the guy WAS attacking his daughter?

I think the answer to IF is I don't buy his story. (and accordng to the article in the OP, neither do the detectives. If there's been new developments, my apologies, I've only skimmed the thread.)

But  according to that..., if the guy is attacking her from under the bed, that's a nifty trick, and if he had been attacking her and hid under the bed when her brother came by at 2:30 in the morning to say goodnight, the operative is that he hid (and was already hidden when the brother came by, and reported seeing legs sticking out.)

Why a woman being attacked would not immediately jump up and run the second the guy got off her and fled under the bed, I have no idea.

Now, if the guy had said "if you run I'll kill him with this gun I have under the bed" i might be inclined to believe her, but he'd have to be facing the other way, or risk shooting his own nuts off., But the kid was under the bed, and not attacking the daughter when dad came in with his gun. Dad came in and began asking questions. If the kid was in the midst of an attack, then i doubt armed dad would have opened with a question,.

I think he executed the kid.

Now, it is possible the kid became argumentative. But I have my doubts, I believe having a gun pointed at a guy tends to knock that out of a 17 yr old who hides under beds. And even so, I don't think an armed man who has a kid at bay should be so completely inept with a gun that a drop to the pocket should immediately cause him to fire.

I think the daughter is lying, and I think dad screwed up. Their story is as flimsy as saran wrap.

(Just my opinion on the story as i read it.)

 

IF the dad walked in on an attack, and if the girl had behaved like she had been attacked,  obviously he's fully justified. But  I don't think that is what happened. If he walked out and surprised an intruder, he's justified regardless of the intruder's motive or reason for being there at 2:30 AM

If the unarmed kid physically attacked the man, he's justified even if the daughter did let him in (and he is led to believe he's an intruder.)

 

 

 

 

General question. can a child be compelled to testify against a parent in a criminal trial?

 

 

~Bang

[Commander PK]

Bang, I must say that is a distinct possibility. 

 

the problem is it probably can't be proved.

 

a skilled prosecutor could get the girl to crack on the stand.  I do think that is the only way that hypothetical of yours could be proved. 

 

and then the question comes down to how hard are they willing to grill a 14 year old girl who just had a boy killed in her bedroom because of her lie? 

 

This girl let her father shoot a boy she knew in her room because apparently she was afraid of what her father might do, that's a cold hearted person there...cold enough to defeat Perry Mason in a court of law? 

[Larry]

I appreciate your whole response, but specifically to this point you made...you do realize most of the time that is near impossible right? 

 

How can a person who claims self-defense prove what was said when the other party dies.

Funny, you don't seem to have any problem demanding that the prosecution do it. And at the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of proof, too.

Maybe "what the dead guy said" shouldn't be considered as justification, or non-, at all?

When the rule was "He'd better have a gun with his fingerprints on it", things were a whole lot clearer, weren't they? It's a lot easier to establish "was the victim armed?" than "did the victim do anything that might have caused the shooter to feel nervous?", after the fact, huh?

 

I believe it is better that a guilty man should go free, than an innocent man should go to prison, and I believe in the right to bear arms. 

 

 

It appears, from here, that you believe in letting hundreds of guilty gun owners go free, because you falsely believe that this is the only way to protect your right to bear arms.  

 

I again point out that it is possible to have rules in which self defense must be clearly established, and not have wholesale gun confiscation. 

 

In fact, I assert that that's the way things were, until quite recently. 

 

I suspect that there were very few cases, 40 years ago, of people claiming that shooting somebody was justified because he threw popcorn at me. 

 

There is a place where people have the right to keep and bear arms, but do not have the right to fire them at people who are texting. 

[CrypticVillain]

The thread is finally living up to it's potential 

 

When I first saw the story, I knew I had to post it on here. Like I said, this story was made for ES. I was at a dinner party and I brought this story up. The conversation there was just as crazy as this thread...

 

Timing is going to be very key in this situation. 

 

Also, there has to be SOME way that the girl gets some type of punishment in this if the fact is that she lied and said she didn't know the boy. 

 

Yes, the father should have maybe let cooler heads prevail and whatnot, but the fact is that there was a dude in his daughter's room that she said she didn't know. (And whatever happened after this is when timing becomes the key.)

 

The father might have shot the gun, but the blood is on the daughter's hand. She sneaked a boy in the house and lied about her knowledge of him. 

[Bang]

Bang, I must say that is a distinct possibility. 

 

the problem is it probably can't be proved.

 

a skilled prosecutor could get the girl to crack on the stand.  I do think that is the only way that hypothetical of yours could be proved. 

 

and then the question comes down to how hard are they willing to grill a 14 year old girl who just had a boy killed in her bedroom because of her lie? 

 

This girl let her father shoot a boy she knew in her room because apparently she was afraid of what her father might do, that's a cold hearted person there...cold enough to defeat Perry Mason in a court of law? 

I would hope that they'd grill her pretty hard.

She may be 14 who just watch a kid get killed..   but the kid was 17 and is dead.

at least she has the opportunity to deal with her condition.

If she's lying, her delicate psyche should not really be a concern in pursuing justice for the dead kid.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

Also, there has to be SOME way that the girl gets some type of punishment in this if the fact is that she lied and said she didn't know the boy.

I'm not aware of what law I'd prosecute her, for. Especially considering her age.

 

 

Yes, the father should have maybe let cooler heads prevail and whatnot, but the fact is that there was a dude in his daughter's room that she said she didn't know. (And whatever happened after this is when timing becomes the key.)

 

 

Another factor in Daddy's defense:  While the boyfriend was 17, the daughter was 14. 

 

I could see Daddy reacting differently, if daughter had been 17.  (Could see daughter reacting differently, too.) 

 

I will also quietly observe that, I don't know, but 17-on-14 might legally be rape.  (Not that I think that really matters, here.) 

[SkinInsite]

The girl is 16 actually

[Commander PK]

Funny, you don't seem to have any problem demanding that the prosecution do it. And at the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of proof, too. 

 

Our system of justice demands they do it, and the burden is on the state Larry.  Our system is designed to work that way.  You are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law "beyond a reasonable doubt." 

 

Do you suggest that our system of justice is the problem? 

I would hope that they'd grill her pretty hard.

She may be 14 who just watch a kid get killed..   but the kid was 17 and is dead.

at least she has the opportunity to deal with her condition.

If she's lying, her delicate psyche should not really be a concern in pursuing justice for the dead kid.

 

~Bang

 

if they believe she is lying to them...absolutely.

[Larry]

She may be 14 who just watch a kid get killed..

Insert classic definition of chutzpah.

But, no, I don't think I go after her at all.

(And I'm no lawyer, but I don't think children can be called to testify, at all, without their parent's permission.)

[twa]

do we need to bring it back?

[CrypticVillain]

I'm not aware of what law I'd prosecute her, for. Especially considering her age.

Yeah, that is the problem. It looks like she is going to get away with no punishment, by the law. 

 

But honestly, mentally, this would destroy somebody. How is she going to live with this? Anybody with an ounce of compassion would get eaten alive by this.

[Larry]

Our system of justice demands they do it, and the burden is on the state Larry.  Our system is designed to work that way.  You are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law "beyond a reasonable doubt." 

 

Do you suggest that our system of justice is the problem?

And as I understand it, our laws specifically state that a person claiming self defense has to prove that claim, by a preponderance of the evidence (or some legal term close to that.)

Our system does not say I can claim she was killed by the Starship Enterprise, and the prosecution has to prove that there weren't any time-space wormholes in the sector.

This "I can claim anything I want, and they have to prove I'm lying" is a myth.

[Commander PK]

Funny, you don't seem to have any problem demanding that the prosecution do it. And at the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of proof, too.

Maybe "what the dead guy said" shouldn't be considered as justification, or non-, at all?

When the rule was "He'd better have a gun with his fingerprints on it", things were a whole lot clearer, weren't they? It's a lot easier to establish "was the victim armed?" than "did the victim do anything that might have caused the shooter to feel nervous?", after the fact, huh?

 

 

It appears, from here, that you believe in letting hundreds of guilty gun owners go free, because you falsely believe that this is the only way to protect your right to bear arms.  

 

I again point out that it is possible to have rules in which self defense must be clearly established, and not have wholesale gun confiscation. 

 

In fact, I assert that that's the way things were, until quite recently. 

 

I suspect that there were very few cases, 40 years ago, of people claiming that shooting somebody was justified because he threw popcorn at me. 

 

There is a place where people have the right to keep and bear arms, but do not have the right to fire them at people who are texting. 

 

When was your rule ever a rule?  Somebody must have a gun with fingerprints on it to justify a shooting?  I think generally speaking 40 years ago people at large seemed to have had more respect for each other.  Maybe not in specific geographic areas (big cities) but "in the sticks" we did. 

 

and that fellow was not shot because he was texting. 

[Larry]

Yeah, that is the problem. It looks like she is going to get away with no punishment, by the law. 

 

But honestly, mentally, this would destroy somebody. How is she going to live with this? Anybody with an ounce of compassion would get eaten alive by this.

She's a juvenile.

The juvenile justice system is supposed to be aimed at rehabilitation, not at punishment.

[sacase]

Why do facts bother you? He was unarmed and a minor. Those are facts, accept it.

It's also highly distressing that you feel "argumentative" is something that even remotely comes close to justify a shooting. The kid was invited into the home and then his girl told a wild eyed gunman that she didn't know him. You bet your ass the kid is going to argue that all important point. Might even become animated when faced with the prospect of his own impending demise. You seem to feel that's unreasonable because on your planet people respond to threats on their lives by falling to the ground quietly and accepting their fate.

The minor daughter cannot invite him inside she does not have the right to do so as she does not own the property and is a minor. 

[Commander PK]

 

But honestly, mentally, this would destroy somebody. How is she going to live with this? Anybody with an ounce of compassion would get eaten alive by this.

 

 

as well she should.  She caused the situation that caused her 17 year old (friend/boyfriend/friend with benefits) to be killed and her father to be his killer. 

 

that is punishment enough for the 14 year old if she has a conscience.  If she does not...well then there is no amount of prison time that would make a difference for her anyway even if she could be convicted of something.

[sacase]

I don't think the father wanted to kill the boy. But he did. Based on the facts that he had the boy at gun point, the way the boy acted, and the lie the daughter told.

I think many people are too quick to immediately dismiss the father as responsible and I think it is for the exact reason Larry outlined above.

It shouldn't be taken so lightly when a citizen kills another citizen. The fact that people want to place all the blame on a teenager is ridiculous. In my world, a teenager doing something stupid (ie trying to have consensual sex with a girl his age) shouldn't consider being killed as a possible side effect.

I think the biggest thing that bothers me here if that you have a situation where a person is killed for trespassing. Assuming the shooter feels bad and didn't mean to kill the kid, then the ISSUE here is that he used deadly force in a situation that everyone now agrees was not necessary. But somehow it's the teenagers fault?

I tend to assume an adult will be more responsible than a teenager in any situation. I also think when you are pointing a gun at someone, you are very responsible for what happens next. You don't just get to pull the trigger whenever and it can't be your fault because it's in your house.

Also it's interesting that people want to say the teenage boy is basically an adult but the daughter has no right to invite someone inside.

If you want to have a gun, be responsible with it. This is another case of someone not doing that.

Its even more scary that you completely absolve the teenager of any wrong doing just because he is a teenager. Maybe you have low expectations but a 17 y/o should know better than to be in someone's house uninvited at 2am. 

[Larry]

When was your rule ever a rule?  Somebody must have a gun with fingerprints on it to justify a shooting?  I think generally speaking 40 years ago people at large seemed to have had more respect for each other.  Maybe not in specific geographic areas (big cities) but "in the sticks" we did. 

 

and that fellow was not shot because he was texting. 

Maybe I'm wishing things were the way they were on TV.

On TV, when a cop shoots somebody, then IAB better find a gun, with the suspect's fingerprints on it, or the cop's facing a murder charge. Maybe, if the cop had identified himself, and was making a felony arrest, then a claim of "well, he acted like he was going for a gun" might be good enough.

 

That's why we have the TV tradition of the "drop gun". 

I don't imagine Marshal Dillon looking too kindly on somebody shooting somebody, and claiming that "well, he twitched, and he might have had a gun in his pocket".

[Commander PK]

And as I understand it, our laws specifically state that a person claiming self defense has to prove that claim, by a preponderance of the evidence (or some legal term close to that.)

Our system does not say I can claim she was killed by the Starship Enterprise, and the prosecution has to prove that there weren't any time-space wormholes in the sector.

This "I can claim anything I want, and they have to prove I'm lying" is a myth.

 

You can't prove how you "felt" given the circumstances, but if the physical evidence does not mesh with what you say than yes you have some 'splaining to do. 

 

Sometimes there is no preponderance of evidence, and there is no way to rebuke what you say happened  (Trayvon Martin) again, you cannot convict without evidence.  The state must convict you "beyond a reasonable doubt." 

 

If there is no physical evidence, and "eyewitness testimony" if there is any is usually the most unreliable evidence you can have, than how can you have beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

You can't convict somebody because they can't prove they are not guilty of the crime.  You are not guilty until proven innocent in the United States. 

[Bang]

Its even more scary that you completely absolve the teenager of any wrong doing just because he is a teenager. Maybe you have low expectations but a 17 y/o should know better than to be in someone's house uninvited at 2am. 

good enough for me.

Shoot him. by all means. 

Kill his ass, and put him in the ground.

It's the only damn way he's ever going to learn.

 

~Bangbangbangabangbangbagbangbang

[twa]

And as I understand it, our laws specifically state that a person claiming self defense has to prove that claim, by a preponderance of the evidence (or some legal term close to that.)

Our system does not say I can claim she was killed by the Starship Enterprise, and the prosecution has to prove that there weren't any time-space wormholes in the sector.

This "I can claim anything I want, and they have to prove I'm lying" is a myth.

 

the preponderance level is to prevent a trial if charged or prevent charges(Florida) , reasonable doubt is all that has to exist to be acquitted

The state has to prove it's case(which would include no action by the boy justifying self defense), the defense simply has to introduce reasonable doubt

 

sucks at times

[Commander PK]

Maybe I'm wishing things were the way they were on TV.

On TV, when a cop shoots somebody, then IAB better find a gun, with the suspect's fingerprints on it, or the cop's facing a murder charge. Maybe, if the cop had identified himself, and was making a felony arrest, then a claim of "well, he acted like he was going for a gun" might be good enough.

 

That's why we have the TV tradition of the "drop gun". 

I don't imagine Marshal Dillon looking too kindly on somebody shooting somebody, and claiming that "well, he twitched, and he might have had a gun in his pocket".

 

Law Enforcement actually has a term for this, it's called the "Hollywood Rule" and it causes unrealistic expectations. 

The "Hollywood Rule" is based on the fact that people think the way shootings happen on T.V. and in the movies are the way they happen in real life. People watch Dirty Harry films and think it's based on reality. Take CSI for example, and look at what people think forensic detectives can do based on those shows.  lol

 

Usually, nothing is further from the truth. 

 

[Larry]

Its even more scary that you completely absolve the teenager of any wrong doing just because he is a teenager. Maybe you have low expectations but a 17 y/o should know better than to be in someone's house uninvited at 2am. 

 

Ah, I see we've invented the standard of "statutory breaking and entering":  Defined as "when someone was consensually allowed into a house, by someone who I claim cannot legally consent to allowing someone into the house."  

 

----------

Got it. 

 

I'm walking down the street.  I can pull a gun and shoot anybody I want. 

 

Long as there's no witnesses, then I get away with it.  Because after all, they can't PROVE that he DIDN'T scare me. 

 

Because that's the way our system of justice has always worked, and you're un-American if you think different.