Wow! He doesn’t know how to get to his own school? He doesn’t appear to be someone with special needs. I could understand that from an elementary school student or someone with a mental disability, but a high school student with average intelligence? That doesn’t sound right to me, even hearing it from just one side. I would have to hear both sides of the story. Even he said that she started yelling at him and kept yelling at him, so why was he insisting to stay and explain anything rather than leave and go to the next house for help?
“the guy he came downstairs, uhm and then he grabbed the gun, then I saw it, and then I started to run, and that’s when I heard the gunshot”
…
“the only reason he missed is that he forgot to take the safety off”
How would he have heard a shot if the safety was on?
It was obviously a warning shot, because the man had a shotgun, so if he intended to hurt him then he would have been blown in half, This is a prime example of twisting the facts to make it appear worse than it really is. “Why did these people choose my house?” is not a racial comment or anything other than a paranoid woman fearing for her life who thought that there was more than 1 person trying to enter her home. It is not like she knew his name, so is it wrong say these people? “People: human beings in general or considered collectively.”. He looks like a human being to me. The term “these people” would have applied to me or you or any of us if we had been there. Would you have taken offense by it? We do not know her intentions, other than to protect her home.
Again, one side to that story does not paint a clear picture. Especially with the statements that are being made and presented.
Has anyone considered that maybe if he had gotten in enough trouble for his mother to take his phone away, that it could be possible that he is a delinquent. Even a delinquent who may have been skipping school and trying to break into the home?
Hopefully the judge has enough sense to listen to both sides and consider the evidence presented before making judgement. I am not condoning the brandishing and discharge of a firearm in this case, but I am not seeing this kid as innocent based on his side of the story.
What i find amusing is how they imply that the home owner was making a racial slur be saying “these people” which has no reference to any race other than the human race, and then the headline goes to the trouble of saying…“a black 14 year old boy”. It seems to me that everyone except the home owner is emphasizing his race. Why say anything other than …" a 14 year old boy". Again, I think that story is being blown out of proportion for the benefit of the media and Police relations with the public in that area. Keep an unbiased open mind, and this becomes clear.
lol
Agitated caller, until he pulls out the AR-15, and then we are back off topic somewhat, but I guess if he goes postal that that will still have something to do with delivering flyers.
time will tell the whole story, no weapons were reported outside of the one discharged by the homeowner. im sure charges are being filed because law enforcement is investigating.
im all for guns but some people are looking for an opportunity just too shoot someone and that’s sick
other reason may be he was new too the area. one article said his father was deployed. very possible if its a military or family that just moved not too know how too get too school yet
Anyone owning a hand gun must want to shoot someone, because that use is what they are designed for, not hunting, If you consider the shooters point of view in this case, he wakes up to his wife hysterically claiming that people are trying to break into his home. So he grabs his gun and fires a warning shot. Sounds reasonable and responsible to me. If he cannot use his shotgun (not a handgun) to defend his home and family, then why do we need our current gun laws? I agree with Jamie Lee Curtis that this country may be better off if we stop calling it gun control and start calling it gun safety. If the info in the article is correct, then the only one at fault was the woman loosing control of her logic due to her emotions, which is common for many humanoids.
The possibility of him being new to the area crossed my mind as well. However, I thought that unless it was his first day (which he shouldn’t have overslept) then he would have known the general direction, and could have stopped at a place of business to ask for directions, like a gas station that has maps. If he relies that much on his phone, then it reflects how out of touch with the real world, and how lost, some people would be if forced off the grid by a loss of technology. Again, need the rest of the info before pointing any blame for any wrong doing, but I can see several mistakes made based on that info, and they are not by the alleged shooter. The mother also could have restricted the phone use when he was grounded in the home, rather than taking it away when he is out on his own away from home and may need it for emergencies.
I hope it works out well and that they all learn a lesson from it, but the main thing is that no one got hurt.
That seems like another irresponsible statement. My first step to defend myself is not to fire a gun into an unknown direction at an unknown target and hope for the best wherever it might hit. If I have to pull the trigger to defend myself, then I am going to need to fire at the threat, not in the direction of innocent bystanders.
I don’t believe either of you know what those words mean. Demonstrated by your first statement, you don’t know what gun safety actually is.
Words have specific meanings, generally. Safety and control are very different. The only people who would want to mix up those words, have an agenda to fool people. And if they thought about what they were doing, their actions are causing harm to people.
The bigger issue is door knocking in towns without a permit. The fines are steeper than registering in the town. If you door knock, it’s better to bend the flyer over, don’t make a crease and wedge it in the door. No need for door hangers. I’ve left flyers in doors at eye level, they either see it walking to the house or it falls in front of them when they open the door from the inside.
This is an incorrect assumption. I do not “want” to shoot or harm anybody, but if the use of force is the last option for the safety of my family or myself I will.
I have been using guns responsibly since I was 7 years old, a span of slightly more than half a century. It is incorrect to include me in absolutist statements regarding my intentions.
Incidentally, some handguns are designed for hunting.
our city doesn’t like door too door salesman. i dont mind it, we have a high population of elderly and unfortunately they’re the most targeted by door too door scammers
right, i hate scams, but rather than educate the elderly and advocate personal resonsibility and arresting people for scamming others out of their money, the solution is to tax people to give them permission to knock on your door?
many are suffering from alzheimer’s and dimentia. they often have poor hearing and are fatigued very quickly so that prolonged comprehension is very difficult. so think about the cost for any city too try too educate people who suffer from many different ailments and dieases verses charging businesses who wish too go door too door?
btw there are advocates for the elderly that teach them what too watch out for and neighbors that alert others and authorities when there’s a loser scamming people.
so most neighborhoods watch out for the elderly in our city
no worries. only reason i know is related too this topic. many years ago we left a business card and got called and yelled at by a homeowner saying it was illegal.
btw i checked with the city what i did wasn’t illegal since i just left it without knocking or talking too anyone
but this belies the problem, this is not the cities job, it is our responsibility as people to help the ones we know, not to throw that obligation on a city and tax strangers to fund that education. it is the citizens responsibility to educate themselves and their family and neighbors and it is the cities responsibility to arrest and punish those who perpetrate the crime.
i think if the scammers were forced to pay back with interest the money they steal, earning the means to do so through public labor if necessary, that would go a good deal further to discourage that behavior than mearly requiring a permit to knock on doors.
think about it, if a person is willing to steal through dishonesty from the elderly and inept would they have any qualms with flaunting the permit?
) without big brothers permission…
