Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriendFollow

#102 Mar 17 2014 at 5:47 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:

I don't know about you, but when I am reliving my worst nightmare ( no coffee in the morning ), I act emotionally as opposed to logically; most people do.


Unfortunately, that's not an excuse for your actions. Especially, when your "worst nightmare" is part of life. And no, "raping" is not part of life, because she wasn't getting raped. That was a scenario that he created. His nightmare was her simply having sex, common for the average man.



Edited, Mar 17th 2014 1:55pm by Almalieque
#103 Mar 17 2014 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Hand in your Liberal card. You've joined us on the conservative dark side.
I'll disagree with something the Conservafuhrer says and be a liberal again soon enough.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Mar 17 2014 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I don't know about you, but when I am reliving my worst nightmare ( no coffee in the morning ), I act emotionally as opposed to logically; most people do.


Unfortunately, that's not an excuse for your actions. Especially, when your "worst nightmare" is part of life. And no, "raping" is not part of life, because she wasn't getting raped. That was a scenario that he created. His nightmare was her simply having sex, common for the average man.

Rape was a reasonable assumption to come to under the circumstances. Our laws give power to the protecting homesteader.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#105 Mar 17 2014 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Hand in your Liberal card. You've joined us on the conservative dark side.
I'll disagree with something the Conservafuhrer says and be a liberal again soon enough.

Flip-flopper. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#106 Mar 17 2014 at 8:08 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I don't know about you, but when I am reliving my worst nightmare ( no coffee in the morning ), I act emotionally as opposed to logically; most people do.


Unfortunately, that's not an excuse for your actions. Especially, when your "worst nightmare" is part of life. And no, "raping" is not part of life, because she wasn't getting raped. That was a scenario that he created. His nightmare was her simply having sex, common for the average man.

Rape was a reasonable assumption to come to under the circumstances. Our laws give power to the protecting homesteader.

Rape was not a reasonable assumption to come under the circumstances. Our laws give protection to the accused.
#107 Mar 17 2014 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I don't know about you, but when I am reliving my worst nightmare ( no coffee in the morning ), I act emotionally as opposed to logically; most people do.


Unfortunately, that's not an excuse for your actions. Especially, when your "worst nightmare" is part of life. And no, "raping" is not part of life, because she wasn't getting raped. That was a scenario that he created. His nightmare was her simply having sex, common for the average man.

Rape was a reasonable assumption to come to under the circumstances. Our laws give power to the protecting homesteader.

Rape was not a reasonable assumption to come under the circumstances. Our laws give protection to the accused.

No they don't, not when 'in the act'. It was very reasonable. A strange man had intruded into this guys home. That's all one needs to legally protect themselves with deadly force.d

Learn the law before debating it.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#108 Mar 17 2014 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Learn the law before debating it.
Welcome to the first page.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Mar 17 2014 at 8:19 AM Rating: Decent
*
229 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Yeah, how dare he defend his child.

He has the right to protect his family, but that right doesn't grant him the privilege of killing boys who sleep with his daughter.

Quote:
His daughter apparently told him she did not know the boy.

She didn't mention that she was in danger, or that the boy had a gun, or that he was in the process of raping her. The father had a chance to talk with the boy and get things straightened out, but didn't, instead telling the boy to stay still while he pointed his gun at him, probably stunning the boy into silence, and then in paranoia deciding that the boy idly scratching his knee was him reaching for a weapon, which he assumed to be the same weapon used to threaten his daughter into submission.

Quote:
The boy "reached for something".

If he had reached for a gun, would we instead be reading a thread about how a teenage boy sneaked into a house early in the morning, had his evil way with the daughter, and then shot both her and her father in a fit of malice? That scenario sounds far fetched.

Almalieque wrote:
This is absurd.

Yes.

Edited, Mar 17th 2014 10:27am by Demoncard
#110 Mar 17 2014 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Learn the law before debating it.
Welcome to the first page.


The dog ate it?...Smiley: blush
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#111 Mar 17 2014 at 8:30 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I never would have thought that I would be on the "left" on an issue on this forum... haha

Elinda wrote:
No they don't, not when 'in the act'.


Yes, they do. Especially given the fact that he wasn't "in the act". He didn't see him assaulting his daughter, that's why he asked her if she knew him. He shot him because he "reached for something", not because he was simply there. Else, he would have been shot earlier on. You're conflating two different scenarios. If the father went to the kitchen and saw some random guy walking about, that is totally different from the given scenario.

Elinda wrote:
It was very reasonable. A strange man had intruded into this guys home. That's all one needs to legally protect themselves with deadly force.

Read above.

Elinda wrote:

Learn the law before debating it.


Almalieque the Most Knowing already wrote:
I'm not debating the actual law, but bemoaning the validity of it.


Almalieque The Most Great previously wrote:
I'm not claiming that he did or didn't violate any laws. I'm claiming that what he did was wrong. Just like the up skirt picture scandal. It was totally legal and legit.


learn to read before responding?

Yes, there are some facts that would lean toward a break-in; however, there are more facts that lean to it not being a break in. You can't ignore all of the contradicting facts to justify actions.
#112 Mar 17 2014 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demoncard wrote:
She didn't mention that she was in danger, or that the boy had a gun, or that he was in the process of raping her.

We don't really know what was or wasn't said aside from the bits in the article. It's easy to create a scenario to support your viewpoint in this case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Mar 17 2014 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Demoncard wrote:
If guns weren't as abundant as one pence sweets in your country,
Here's the thing, I had this nice post going over your other points until I got here and woke up. You're not interested in examining the situation and the details involved. This is just blind politics. So good luck with that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Mar 17 2014 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demoncard wrote:
She didn't mention that she was in danger, or that the boy had a gun, or that he was in the process of raping her.

We don't really know what was or wasn't said aside from the bits in the article. It's easy to create a scenario to support your viewpoint in this case.


I don't know that ANYTHING was said, from the article, apart from some variation of:

"Do you know this boy?"
"No."
"Don't move."

There's not a lot else to go on, much less the "argument" that some people are positing here.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#115 Mar 17 2014 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I just figured there were other articles that weren't linked. Doesn't really make a world of difference in the long run.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Mar 17 2014 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:

There's not a lot else to go on, much less the "argument" that some people are positing here.

There is some contradiction in the stories. Some say that the father heard sounds. Some say that the sibling heard sounds and told the father. Some say that the sibling saw something. In any case, the majority of them say that there was an altercation of some sort

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Reports-Dad-shoots-teen-found-in-his-daughter-s-5313696.php wrote:
Authorities investigate the shooting of a teen at a home in the 22300 block of Bridgestone Ridge, Thursday, March 13, 2014, in Houston. The shooing happened about 2:30 a.m. on Bridgestone Ridge near FM 2920 after a man found a a 17-year-old male in his daughter's bedroom. There was a struggle and the teen was shot.

......
Her father told investigators he heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom about 2:30 a.m. and went to investigate.

He found the 17-year-old in the bedroom, and there was an altercation before the boy was shot once.

http://newsone.com/2974620/charges-unlikely-for-father-who-fatally-shot-daughters-boyfriend-video/ wrote:
As previously reports by NewsOne, the unarmed McCormick was discovered around 2:30 a.m. after the girl’s younger brother noticed two feet sticking from underneath his sister’s bed and went to tell his father.

The father, who has not been identified, grabbed his gun and ran to his daughter’s room where he confronted who he thought was an intruder.

The girl initially lied and said that she did not know McCormick. The father and the teen argued and when it appeared that the boy was reaching for a gun, the father shot him.


lolgaxe wrote:
I just figured there were other articles that weren't linked. Doesn't really make a world of difference in the long run.


You're right. He's still wrong. The fact that he did it in a single head shot also adds to the story.
#117 Mar 17 2014 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
I'm not really sure what side you are on, Alma. A stupid horny teenager did a stupid thing. I'm sorry that he lost his life, but I can't say I agree that all intruders should be given a 'fair shake' to explain themselves, especially at 2 am. Given the information, the man acted appropriately, though maybe he could have aimed for a less deadly place. Between the legs, perhaps.

You brought up how the boy's parents might feel - well I'd argue that his parents really should have a better handle on where their son is a 2 am. He's still at minor at 17, and they are responsible for him. Perhaps if they had been more involved, this wouldn't have happened.

In the end, people are ******* insane and you can't take risks. He lost a number of his rights when he entered that home without permission. It's a tragic incident, to be sure, but the attacks on a father defending his home really are disturbing.
#118 Mar 17 2014 at 10:44 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Torrence wrote:
I'm not really sure what side you are on, Alma.


The side of common sense.

Torrence wrote:
A stupid horny teenager did a stupid thing.


Two stupid horny teenagers did stupid things.

Torrence wrote:
I'm sorry that he lost his life, but I can't say I agree that all intruders should be given a 'fair shake' to explain themselves, especially at 2 am. Given the information, the man acted appropriately, though maybe he could have aimed for a less deadly place. Between the legs, perhaps.


The story, as provided, DOES NOT support the notion that he was an intruder assaulting his daughter. While there were facts to support so, there were MORE facts that contradict that claim.

Torrence wrote:

You brought up how the boy's parents might feel - well I'd argue that his parents really should have a better handle on where their son is a 2 am. He's still at minor at 17, and they are responsible for him. Perhaps if they had been more involved, this wouldn't have happened.


Likewise with the father? Shouldn't he know that his daughter was sexin boys in her bedroom? That's absurd. They both were sneaking out. Furthermore, my mentioning of the parents weren't their emotional feelings of their son dying, but their interpretation of the facts.

Torrence wrote:
In the end, people are batsh*t insane and you can't take risks. He lost a number of his rights when he entered that home without permission.


Except he did have permission.

Torrence wrote:
It's a tragic incident, to be sure, but the attacks on a father defending his home really are disturbing.

He didn't defend anything because nothing offensively occurred prior to him shooting.
#119 Mar 17 2014 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
That kid absolutely did not have permission. The parents own the home, not the children, and they decide who does and does not have permission to enter. That's why children ask their parents if they can have a friend over.

I agree the girl was stupid for letting her boyfriend in, but that doesn't change the facts of the case which you are ignoring.

Boy in house.
Father doesn't know boy.
Father asks girl if she knows boy.
Girl says no.
Boy doesn't follow directions, even when a gun is pointed at his head.
Boy gets shot.

Tragic, but the father was in the right.
#120 Mar 17 2014 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
He completely misread the situation and fatally shot a kid. I can see why you wouldn't think his behaviour should be illegal, but I don't see how anyone can think him entirely without fault.
#121 Mar 17 2014 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Kavekk wrote:
He completely misread the situation
Intruder in the house? Probably a Bible salesman.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 Mar 17 2014 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
He completely misread the situation
Intruder in the house? Probably a Bible salesman.
All the more reason to shoot.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#123 Mar 17 2014 at 11:17 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Torrence wrote:
That kid absolutely did not have permission. The parents own the home, not the children, and they decide who does and does not have permission to enter. That's why children ask their parents if they can have a friend over.


Whether or not he was supposed to be there is not the same as having permission. If the boy survived, would he be charged for entering the house?

Torrence wrote:
Boy in house.
Father doesn't know boy.
Father asks girl if she knows boy.
Girl says no.
Boy doesn't follow directions, even when a gun is pointed at his head.
Boy gets shot.


Let me help you out on the overlooked facts

The Boy was invited to come in the house.
The girl had been making noises with the boy for some time, annotated by the younger sibling
The father did not hear any screams, shouts or concerns as he approached the room
The father enters the room and does not see a weapon or any evidence of assault
The father does not notice his daughter in any form of distraught
The daughter doesn't ask for any help, attempt to run or struggle with the boy
Father doesn't know boy. (as if knowing the boy would make a difference if it were an assault)
Father asks girl if she knows boy. (as if knowing the boy would make a difference if it were an assault)
Girl says no.
The boy initiates a confrontation with the father, probably labeling the girl as a liar.
The father engages in the confrontation, probably saying that his daughter is innocent
The father gets tired of arguing
The father says don't move
Boy doesn't follow directions reacts out of fear, even when because a gun is pointed at his head.
The father claims that the boy was reaching for a weapon that he did not see
Boy gets shot.


Torrence wrote:

Tragic, but the father was in the right.


Escalating violence, to kill out of fear is not in the right. Again, this is not about protecting his daughter. This is about him reacting to the boy "reaching for something". Obviously, the guy would have already had the weapon out if he used it on his daughter.

Edited, Mar 17th 2014 7:20pm by Almalieque
#124 Mar 17 2014 at 11:27 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Oh wait.. Just realized that the boy was black...totally acceptable by current standards.
#125 Mar 17 2014 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Oh, whew.

/relax

No, no, oddly enough that doesn't change a thing.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#126Almalieque, Posted: Mar 17 2014 at 11:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you don't think that the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of an assault or a weapon makes a difference, then you are truly confused. What exactly is he protecting against?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 190 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (190)