Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Knock out" teen shot breaking/entering


  • Please log in to reply
286 replies to this topic

#91 Hawk

Hawk

    Huddler of the Decade

  • Moderators
  • 14,979 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:45 AM

read it again...the other kid...you know, the one that didn't get shot and killed, he ran away. The kid that got shot and killed decided to confront the man that owned the home he had just decided to break into and then was subsequently shot and killed.

#92 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,279 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:47 AM

read it again...the other kid...you know, the one that didn't get shot and killed, he ran away. The kid that got shot and killed decided to confront the man that owned the home he had just decided to break into and then was subsequently shot and killed.


i edited my post to correct that. however it appears that the homeowner escalated the situation. just another wannabe cowboy mad because his walmart brand flat screen might have been taken

#93 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,279 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:50 AM

what exactly did this kid do to forfeit his right to live?

#94 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:50 AM

tragic



Good riddance.

This is what the second amendment is for. To protect you and your family from thugs.

Imagine if the homeowner didnt have the gun. The boy probably would have beaten him half to death, in his own home, after robbing him blind.

`That is insensitive, but I dont care. If you are not even safe in your own home, then what can you do?

#95 Hawk

Hawk

    Huddler of the Decade

  • Moderators
  • 14,979 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:58 AM

i edited my post to correct that. however it appears that the homeowner escalated the situation. just another wannabe cowboy mad because his walmart brand flat screen might have been taken

personally, I won't argue that point because I think it's totally senseless. That said, there's also millions of gun advocates and constitutional rights preachers that would say the man did exactly what his rights said he could do. Some have gone to the point to say that it wouldn't matter if the kid was running away or not...as long as I get him before he leaves my property, I'm just exercising my constitutional rights.

#96 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,831 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:12 AM

legal/illegal isn't necessarily right/wrong

e: if the system doesn't even consider anything he did to be a capital crime, idk why it's totally fine to just shoot a kid over your tv and/or xbox or whatever


If someone breaks into my home I'm gonna be shooting to protect my family. I wouldn't be celebrating or high fiving anyone later because it's still tragic and something you have to live with for the rest of your life. When I was a teenager I was living that life.

I just never liked or understood those who boast about this like it's some sort of victory. They remind me of assholes whose first question to me,, after meeting me, is if I killed someone 'over there'

#97 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,279 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:29 AM

If someone breaks into my home I'm gonna be shooting to protect my family. I wouldn't be celebrating or high fiving anyone later because it's still tragic and something you have to live with for the rest of your life. When I was a teenager I was living that life.


well it appears as though you deserved to have been shot to death for your transgressions. do you feel guilty for still being alive after being "about that life" or what? is it different for some reason that i'm missing here?

e: have you considered seppuku? not only to restore your honor but also for the benefit of society. from what i've seen in this thread, it would be "karma" and several posters would take the time to type "good riddance" if you did it sooo



#98 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,831 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:49 AM

Over your head, gentleman

#99 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,279 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:00 AM

Over your head, gentleman


how so? if, hypothetically, you had been shot to death back when you were breaking into wherever, would you think that it was justified?

it's odd because felony b&e can net you as little as 4 years in NC and it's certainly not a capital crime but for some reason it's ok to just blindly fire at them because of what you think they might do

also quick question if i'm walking down the street and someone pushes me am i now free to shoot that person to death? because tbh i'm going to feel more threatened by a person who has actually gotten physically violent with me than by a person who might maybe do something possibly if i don't hurry up and shoot him already

#100 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,095 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:03 AM

how so? if, hypothetically, you had been shot to death back when you were breaking into wherever, would you think that it was justified?

it's odd because felony b&e can net you as little as 4 years in NC and it's certainly not a capital crime but for some reason it's ok to just blindly fire at them because of what you think they might do

also quick question if i'm walking down the street and someone pushes me am i now free to shoot that person to death? because tbh i'm going to feel more threatened by a person who has actually gotten physically violent with me than by a person who might maybe do something possibly if i don't hurry up and shoot him already


what would you say is an instance when violent force - that is deadly force - is an ethically acceptable option? is there such an instance at all?

#101 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,279 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:19 AM

there are certainly times but i can't see a situation where you go "hey that guy tried to take mah blu ray player i'm gonna shoot him now" as ever really being acceptable. it's the escalation that's the problem. by far the most violent act committed in the op story was the shooting.

with the zimmerman case, people were making the argument that zimmerman had reason to fear for his life and was justified in killing trayvon martin and let me tell you, as someone who thinks zimmerman is guilty as poo, i find that defense to be more reasonable than any defense of the homeowner in this case (unless it comes out that the "confrontation" entailed an unprovoked attack by the kid who was shot to death). if that "confrontation" basically amounted to the kid telling the guy to fug off, i'm not going to side with the dude who literally killed a person over the dude who attempted to break into a house.

it's weird to me that, in a vacuum, society says that killing someone is in fact worse than breaking into a house. however for some reason killing someone is a perfectly reasonable response to a kid breaking into a house.

#102 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,196 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:21 AM

Business, with its artificially low credit rates, mountains of tax breaks, and favorable bankruptcy laws, is one of the biggest recipients of government aid in the country.


As usual....blame anything other than the individuals decisions and work ethic. Nothing changes with you.

#103 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,662 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:04 AM

So Cantrell has determined the confrontation path the kid decided to choose still does not meet self defense muster.

Why is that?

Benefit of the doubt is given to the person who has a history of taking bricks and knocking people out...nearly killing them, witness tampering, breaking and entering, and whatever he felt he was going to gain by not running and confronting the homeowner?

#104 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,680 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:17 AM

actually i'm not really sure what sexuality has to do with any of this but if your immediate response to two people thinking that you're completely full of poo is "well maybe they're gay" then uh

a ) that says far more about you than us and
b ) you must feel completely surrounded by suspected homosexuals


lol, you are the one that suggested you might be gay, not me. I simply told you not to let me interrupt your mutual love fest.

I also find it quite ironic that a person who so clearly thinks that someone's personal appearance is the driving factor in forming their opinions is saying that I'm assuming your sexuality has an effect on your opinions. You are the walking definition of hypocrisy and irony.

#105 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,560 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:40 AM

As usual....blame anything other than the individuals decisions and work ethic. Nothing changes with you.


As usual, you're playing checkers when the game is chess.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com