Columbus Ohio area man shoots trespassing teen

[MechAg94]

"Did I mean to hurt anyone? No," he said. "Our family doesn't have a good relationship with Worthington police, so we sought our own home defense. I fired shots to drive them away."

I didn't think Texas law specified it had to be a thief. I thought it was just trespassing and after dark. I think there may have to be some condition of reason to believe there was a threat to person or property. In this case, it sounds like the guy knew it was just some kids running around so I doubt Texas law would have helped him anyway.

 

[MechAg94]

Davis, who was charged with five counts of felonious assault, told officers he had been annoyed by trespassers and that he was aiming for the car's tires from his first-floor bedroom, police said.

"He admitted to never calling the police, but it just had been occurring and he got frustrated and he was upset saying someone trespassed on his property and he was protecting his property," Francis said.

I guess I missed this also. Shooting at tires is mistake #1. Not calling police is mistake #2.

 

[c_yeager]

Why is the trespasser not at least partially responsible for what happened to her?

She is 5% responsible for herself getting shot. THat warrents a stern talking-to from mommy, perhaps even a hididng from Dad (although the whole GETTING SHOT IN THE HEAD angle probably covers that). She might even be asking for a grounding (which is already happening in the ICU anyways).

This leaves our brilliant homeowner with 94% responsibility for what happened, which earns him a lengthy stay with bubba in a cage.

The other 1% is reserved for his weapon, the people that made it, the guys who wrote the second ammendment, the people who support it, and the guy who sold it to him. Afterall, by the same logic that the girl wouldnt have been shot if she wasnt there, he wouldnt have been able to shoot her if he didnt access to a gun. Following our established (assinine) habit of spreading the blame the gun-etal shall be punished with an addition to the Brady statistics and a few shrill mentions in upcoming political speaches.

Happy now?

 

[SIRVEYR666]

What a dumbass.

Hopefully we can kick this guy out of the "gun owner club" for good.

 

[ronto]

As kids, once in a while we would "raid" this old guys grape vinyard. One night after hearing him come out we were fleeing and he fired at us with a shotgun loaded with saltrock.
Hit one of my fellow "raiders" with a few grains. Lord knows we deserved it. Never went back and no charges filed. Wonder what would happen today in our lawsuit crazy world?

 

[Vitamin G]

When asked what he would say to the victim and her family, Davis replied, "Why was she engaging in delinquent behavior?"

Burton then asked Davis if he was sorry, to which he said, "Sorry for defending my family?"

Don't like his actions, but I like his style.
::Flame suit on::

 

[MechAg94]

Vitamin, I think people on this board excuss the behavior of stupid kids far too much, but shooting at a moving vehicle from our bedroom window is not too smart. Unless you were receiving gun fire from said car, I can't come up with a good reason to do so. I don't have a problem with the statement you quoted though.

 

[Low-Sci]

His style? His style seems to be justifying both crappy marksmanship and stupid actions in general by trying to tell us that those kids in the car that were going away were threatening him.

Lying your *ss off, and trying to equate your complete miscarriage of firearms usage with home defense, is the worst style since pink polka-dots.

 

[Art Eatman]

Just finished the renewal stuff for my CHL, so I'm sorta "up" on Texas laws and such.

It doesn't matter if the gal was jumping up and down in the guy's yard and screaming all manner of insults: There's no physical threat, either apparent or real, and thus no justification for any use of deadly force. None. Most definitely a Bad Shoot. Well, no; a DUMB Bad Shoot.

No way the proverbial "rational and prudent person" could see her as a danger, IMO. Being stupid does not justify another person's execution of a death sentence. Trespassing does not justify the application of deadly force.

Sad...

Art

 

[Phenom]

That's just plain wrong. There was absolutely no reason to shoot at the kids. The guy should be charged with attempted murder. Someone comes on my property without permission I usually glare at them and tell them to get off if I catch them. There was no reason for a firearm to be used. I would reverse the prank via a Tippmann WetWilly paint grenade

 

[cyanide]

He should be done!

You don't shoot people for pranks (no matter how much you want to)!

Also, he didn't know WHERE that round was going. What if it hit a bystander walking on the sidewalk, or enterred a neighbors window and hit a child.

If he was shooting to scare as he said then he should have known his backstop - which he didn't.

I hope this guy gets his just deserts.

Really ?

Many cops have shot kids who have been engaged in pranks

I'll wait for the facts to come out first.

Personally I hope he gets off, kids need to know they can't just do whatever they want to anymore.

 

[Phenom]

There's still no reason for attempting to kill the kid.

 

[Henry Bowman]

:banghead: Contrary to "conventional wisdom," the law in Texas is not necessarily the law in the rest of the world! This happened in Ohio!

 

[Car Knocker]

Personally I hope he gets off, kids need to know they can't just do whatever they want to anymore.

Trying to apply the death penalty for trespassing seems to be a bit stiff.

If a kid cuts me off on the freeway, would I be justified in taking a few shots at him - just to let him know he can't do that?

 

[ccwolff]

Detectives said that when the girls ran around the house, a person who lives inside the house, Allen Davis, fired the shots.

Are we all upset because it was a girl... isn't that kind of sexist?
He shot someone who was trespassing on his property...at night.
Sounds like she got what she deserved from how the story is presented AND it also sounds like he needs to work on his aim...

Trespassing does not justify the application of deadly force.

I disagree.

I wonder... if instead of a 17yr old girl he had shot a serial rapest who was trespassing, would there be such criticism of him shooting trespassers?

 

[solareclipse]

one nutcase less on the street.

 

[Green Lantern]

This shooting is 100% unjustified in my book.

Sure, the local kids have a meaty history of being royal pains in the rear to the guy and his mom. But from the story I read, the "trespasser" just WALKED UP HIS DRIVEWAY, turned around and left!

If she had done some of the other crap kids have done to him, beating on windows and all that, THEN I could MAYBE see opening fire...but still, best to be sure of your target with a good light first?

For pete's sake, forget "crazy youthful acts!" If he's justified in shooting her for "trespassing," then this guy could have shot ME a few years ago when I was taking an old man's prescription to him about 10 o'clock one night. Seems I know the area a lot better in daylight, I thought I had the right house but didn't! So I mosey up the driveway and get greeted my a mean-looking guard dog. A guy comes out and I ask if _____ is there. He says wrong house, and tells me how to get to where I need to be.

Sure, the girl was up to no good, but how the @#%! was this idot to KNOW that? How did he know SHE wasn't lost?

 

[theotherrookieshooter]

why the politics?

"The leftist media will probably slander these laws and cite this shot as an example, even though it has nothing to do with said laws"

we're on this forum to discuss the use of deadly force in a situation where from the facts we are presented we can see that it was not in any way warranted (or maybe it was in your opinion). but i dont see the need for bringing politics into the mix, please from now on can we all just leave the political bull**** at the door and just be shooters instead of leftist fags or right wing nazis?

 

[Green Lantern]

Errrrrrr......ummmm....well, it IS called "legal and political."

Though I do disagree somewhat with the statement you refer to. I don't think this would be justified even under Castle Doctrine. If anything it may HELP Castle Doctrine by letting us point to this case and say "See! If you're a trigger-happy lunatic, you would STILL go to jail! Castle Doctrine is ONLY for responsible people defending their lives!"

 

[Kentak]

Have you seen a photo of Davis? I know it's not fair to judge someone by their appearance, but, good grief, not the picture I want the general public to have when they think "gun owner."

K

 

[Phenom]

Post the photo, post the photo

 

[Kentak]

cyanide,

do i get to shoot your kids when the misbehave? You're an idiot. The admins can kick me out for saying that if they want, but you should be kicked out for being the liberals' stereotypical idiot gun owner.

K

 

[Kentak]

Davis:

 

[Phenom]

What the heck kind of haircut is that

 

[1911Tuner]

Shots Fired

Rule 4...Always be certain of your target...etc etc.