‘spooky house’ shooting

[poltergeisty]

One word: LOONY

Originally Posted by The Associated Press

A high school cheerleader, Rachel Barezinsky, is crippled for life. Allen S. Davis was sentenced last month to 19 years in prison for what he said was defending his home.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/241831.html

[car2back]

Bad deal all around.

[mastr]

All kinds of things went wrong there, as "car2back" wrote, a bad deal all around.

I do wonder about "... not trespassing because they had not gone far enough onto the property...". How far inside the property line is considered "free for all" in that locale? Where I live the property line is just that.

[firemedic2150]

Well not taking sides here or defending anyone, at least where I live you cant shoot someone for trespassing and or honking a horn, you can only shoot if you are in direct fear of your life and shooting at a car driving by with a rifle is not close to that in my book.

MMc.

[pappy1]

Arkansas has a home invasion law, deadly force can be used anywhere on your property if you believe you or your property are in danger.

So far, the law has not been abused yet.

[GreatLakes]

I think the shooter was in the wrong. I am pro-gun, and I would not hesitate to use it when necessary. But you have to identify your target as a real threat. Here in Michigan they have whats called the Castle Doctrine which not only gives you the legal right to use deadly force to protect life, but property as well. But there still has to be a real threat. You can't shoot someone because they walked on your property.

[Viper43]

In Indiana the law says they must be IN your house, so the joke goes if you shoot em outside drag em inside.

Indy recently had just a situation and the home owner was within his rights to shoot. The suspect ran off but was caught. It was obvious by evidence at the scene that he was shot inside the home.

V

[car2back]

I'm with Greatlakes on this; I wouldn't hesitate to to protect myself with deadly force if necessary but it sounds like Davis was just blindly discharging a firearm at the vehicle

[kadetklapp]

While it may be extreme to shoot someone in a car (if that's where she was) the fact is that if it wasn't Ohio, they would have had a hard time prosecuting that case due to the fact that he may have been able to argue he was in fear for his life. Ohio hates gun owners and that's a fact.

While I don't agree with him shooting this girl, you have to admit that stupid teenage antics were the root cause of this and some might even go so far as to say "she got what she deserved." Lessons can be learned the hard way. Don't f*ck with people if you don't know how that person will react.

[alphabravo1]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

One word: LOONY
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/241831.html

Real bright bulbs, newspaper qoute: "When the girls returned to check out the noise, a bullet struck Barezinsky, then 17. Her left arm and leg were paralyzed."

Sure go back after you hear what might be firecrackers. In this day an age, kids will kill jsut for the fun of it. If they had not gone abck they would have been okay. They should give prison for stupidity, and lock up the parents too.

AL

[AEMTKieran]

As a law enforcement officer, and a pro gun advocate, I agree with Great Lakes. There was no reason for the guy to open fire. He had no sighted target, and I would hope if he had sighted his target he would have held his fire.

[Don_Burke]

It would appear there was little thinking going on at either end.

Permanent disability is a tough break, but when you do dumb things, you roll the dice.

[spiritwolfpr]

Hello Friends:

I think like most of youu guys,It was very stupid to fire a weapon like that.

In Puerto Rico it goes like this:

1) Subject needs to be INSIDE your house

2)The use of deadly force can only be used if YOU or your FAMILY is
under IMMINENT danger of death or bodyly harm.

In the case of homes Deadly Force can NOT be used to protect property

[poltergeisty]

Sounds like the way it should be.

I don't see any reason for you to shot someone before calling police. Taking matters in your own hands.

Now shooting someone outside and dragging them in, well forensics will prove otherwise.

[car2back]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

I don't see any reason for you to shot someone before calling police.

You're not serious right?

[poltergeisty]

I new this might lead to some sort of forum fog mis-understanding.

As you stated he blindly shot at someone "he thought was a threat."

So you can see the problem in shooting someone, taking the matter in your own hands before a quick 911 call to the authorities who can handle the situation.

Inside your house I don't see an issue. There are certain things to consider though when making that decision to (graphicly) blow blood all over your living room. If you can hide and call police the better for you, especially in the trial. No brainier, rather than taking out a brain.


Make no mistake about it, I am versed in fire arms (M-16) and will defend if necessary. However, if I can't by any means call the police then I guess I'll have to shot. The grouping of a M-16 is pretty good, so I'll take the legs over trying to kill him. Possible "hell" and trial/s would be a thing to think of. Of course if he has a gun then he's gone; worm food, ashes, forever!

All I'm saying is try to take the alternative over shot to kill.

I have to add that I have thought of this possible scenario in my own home many many times before. My first measure to do before even grabbing the gun is to call 911. Even if I hang up or drop the phone they know where to go. Let's hope the line isn't cut

[kb2vxa]

In the southern part of the county are the Pine Barrens where our version of Arkansas hillbillies live. Word has it if you hear a shot you'd better walk back the way you came, you won't hear the second. In a pine forest with nothing but critters and Pineys for 50 miles around people have been known to disappear without a trace.

On a side note sometimes the Jersey Devil takes the blame, our version of Chupacabre (if I spelt it right). Rfael, maybe it's time to let them in on the secret.

When I was a kid up in the mountains we had a "haunted" castle in the woods we took people to on Halloween ghost hunts. Dr. Moldinke never shot anyone but that was the town of Watchung, not the Pine Barrens.

[poltergeisty]

Ya, talk about a bunch of banjo playing, HeeHaw watch'n hillbilly's.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/hee_ha...es/supper1.jpg

I thought they caught the Jersey Devil in the X-Files?

Is there really a Blaire Witch myth in NJ?

I like to add that one day we will all have our own slice of property, one day.

[myhdsport]

He took revenge for being taunted; He could've took cover, waited for them to exit and try to "invade his home" or at least identify the danger to his property or his family. Unless he was close to being ran over or someone was screaming out to him "I am going to kill you,"
I don't see how even a paranoid "recluse" who is use to ridicule could've thought anyone wanted to rob him. He probably thought they were going to TP his yard or a similar prank.

On the otherhand if his assumption would've been correct and he capped some thug whose intentions were to rob or hurt or kill him, would it make a difference? Hell no, he had no idea what/who he was shooting!

I am all for my right to own firearms, but there should be a test to acquire, not a background check(or just a background check). It's easier to get a gun (legally) than it is to drive(legally).(I'll quit-this should have it's own thread, and does probably.)