Police: Driver Kills Boy Who Threw Egg At Vehicle


PDA






Sportcat
July 26, 2005, 03:42 PM
http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/news/4771051/detail.html

Police: Driver Kills Boy Who Threw Egg At Vehicle

UPDATED: 1:39 pm EDT July 26, 2005

INDIANAPOLIS -- A prank may have cost a boy his life on Indianapolis' west side.

As many as seven teenagers were throwing eggs at cars about 11 p.m. Sunday, according to police.

Marion County, Ind., sheriff's deputies said that after the juveniles hit one motorist in the face, the man drove off before returning with a gun, shooting one 15-year-old boy in the leg and another 17-year-old boy in the stomach.

"The victim that was shot with the non-life-threatening injuries, he actually went to a residence and called us -- called the sheriff's department," Marion County sheriff's Sgt. Michael DeHart said.

DeHart said two other teens "regrouped at some location, became worried about (another teen) they had not heard from, and returned back to the site of the shooting and found him in the bushes."

Brandon Dunson, 15, was dead when his friends found him. The other victim, Michael Dyer, 17, was treated and released.

Investigators are still looking for the shooter. He was described as a white male in his 30s, about 6 feet tall. He was driving a maroon or red late 80s Ford full size pickup truck.

James Patterson was one of the boys involved in the egg-throwing incident.

"I think they should find him (the shooter). I don't know where he is right now, but I hope he regrets what he did because he just shot a minor over some eggs," Patterson said. "He didn't have to take it to the extreme. He could've just called the cops. He didn't have to go home, get a gun and come back and shoot us."

If you enjoyed reading about "Police: Driver Kills Boy Who Threw Egg At Vehicle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jefnvk
July 26, 2005, 03:46 PM
Well, I don't advocate shooting people because they egged your car, but I bet the others will think twice before acting like idiots in public again.

El Tejon
July 26, 2005, 03:48 PM
No, he didn't have to shoot you, but then you didn't have to throw the eggs, did you? :(

Too bad the boys did not have proper parents to teach them not to act that way.

Guns_and_Labs
July 26, 2005, 03:52 PM
Hmm, not exactly a "high road" response.

El Tejon
July 26, 2005, 03:59 PM
G&L, not so, this teaches that actions have consequences. The egg throwers know this as does the shooter. I'm not saying that the alleged shooter should not be prosecuted. I'm only repeating that life can be a strict teacher.

Good lessons here for all gun owners: do not act on anger, do not do anything "cute" with your gun, actions have consequences (death, injury to prison).

jsalcedo
July 26, 2005, 04:01 PM
I've been hit with eggs thrown from cars and it sucks.

I could see where an unstable person could come unglued and shoot he egg throwers.

Personally I would call the cops then sue their parents for pain and anguish.

LiquidTension
July 26, 2005, 04:03 PM
Hmm...where was that thread about disparity of force....

Guns_and_Labs
July 26, 2005, 04:10 PM
El Tejon, I was referring to the shooter.

thorn726
July 26, 2005, 04:16 PM
G&L, not so, this teaches that actions have consequences

holy cow. anything to avoid saying this idiot used a gun the WRONG way.

really guys, if an anti were to see this thread, theyd get ammo.

there is no justification for shooting these kids. this was a prank.

another idiot makes gun owners look like they can't handle the responsibility, and now other gun owners saying things to the effect of the kids deserved it?
no way.
a bunch of kids. cripes!
once i threw a little snow chip (not even a ball really) at a jeep with an angry
20 somthing driving- he stopped, yelled, etc.
it really doesnt take mroe than that to scare some kids.
this guy has major issues.
any normal person would either stop and hassle them verbally, or use his hands worst case.
so scared he needs a gun? he shoulda called cops.

CentralTexas
July 26, 2005, 04:17 PM
I'm surprised I survived my childhood actually when I see this...
CT :eek:

Cesiumsponge
July 26, 2005, 04:24 PM
People have pointed/shot waterguns, airsoft and paintball guns at others. People have thrown rocks. People have tossed bowling balls and big rocks off overpasses which have gotten people killed.

I'm not condoning the shooting here, but the youth (and anyone in general)must realize there are crazies out there who can, and will cause harm to life or limb over something thats trivial to most people. One guy who gets egged might chuckle. The next guy might chase you and beat you with a bat until you're a pancake.

You hear these kinds of stories a few times a year where people pull pranks and get killed or severely injured. Those in itself should be enough to make you think twice.

I was a passenger when someone cut us off and followed us to a grocery store and brandished a black object that might have been a firearm in the parking lot about 25 yards away to threaten us. Nothing happened from that thankfully, but if the other car was bluffing and someone in my position had a gun and was off-the-wall, it could have been a messy situation.

Another time a few friends and I were driving up to Port Angeles in two vehicles with a dozen firearms to go shooting on some land. Some jackass in a riced out Talon on the right of us for absolutely NO REASON accelerated to about 80mpg and pulled their e-brake while cranking their wheel hard and tried to do a 360 or some such crap. He accomplished a 180 and the rear of his car was travelling forwards and towards us...and missed us by inches. The crackhead had the audacity to drive past us, and indicate how close he came to hitting us by holding up his fingers a few inches apart. Some other individuals in our shoes would chase the guy down and probably rough him up a bit, or shoot the kid. We just did a bodycheck, found out everyone was fine, and went shooting.

Rich K
July 26, 2005, 04:24 PM
I got rear ended by a 16 y/o who was drunk.Did very minor damage to my car,destroyed his grille and radiator.Cops were called,so was the kid's father.Turned out it was Dad's car.I filed no charges,but did stay and watch the exchange between father and son.Illuminating to say the least.That would have been a much better solution than the one this fellow came up with.Just my 2 cents.

Alex45ACP
July 26, 2005, 04:27 PM
The kid deserved it. I have no tolerance for morons who damage other people's property :fire:

AF_INT1N0
July 26, 2005, 04:30 PM
I would've gone and bought eggs.
Or maybe a gallon of paint.
You can teach a lesson/get revenge without hurting people.

Just my .02

Cesiumsponge
July 26, 2005, 04:34 PM
Or maybe a gallon of paint.

Though if you meet "force" with "more force" by stepping up from eggs to paint, the punks might call the cops and nail you for malicious mischief or some other BS charge. It seems like when you do one-upmanship, the winner loses in the eyes of the police...like the guy with the CCW who happened to one-up the guy who pulled the mystery black object which turned out to be a flashlight.

Vern Humphrey
July 26, 2005, 04:39 PM
There was no justification for this -- shooting is using deadly force (as proven in this case.) You are justified in using deadly force when you have no other option. According to this story, the shooter left and came back with a gun.

This kind of thing makes us all look bad -- and defending this guy makes us look worse.

Frandy
July 26, 2005, 04:50 PM
Vern, I'm with you all the way.

Sorry, Alex but if you really mean it, that a kid who throws eggs deserves to be shot and killed, then I sure hope you don't carry. And if you do carry, I bet your state regs on carrying don't authorize you to kill the kid who pelts you or your car with eggs.

Sindawe
July 26, 2005, 05:03 PM
Marion County, Ind., sheriff's deputies said that after the juveniles hit one motorist in the face, the man drove off before returning with a gun, shooting one 15-year-old boy in the leg and another 17-year-old boy in the stomach. Striking a driver in the face is a very bad idea, one which could lead to loss of control of the vehicle and serious injury or death to the driver or happless bystanders.

Coming back to shoot the little snotlings, while understandable to my eyes, is an over reaction. Of course, I'm sure the "sport" of throwing things at moving cars will be decidedly less popular in the area for awhile.

Old Dog
July 26, 2005, 05:05 PM
Alex, please tell us that you were referring to the post about the kid getting chewed out by his dad ...
Please tell me that you don't really believe that someone who throws an EGG at someone deserves to get killed for it.
The kid deserved it. I have no tolerance for morons who damage other people's property
If you carry a gun and you think like this, well, I have to say that you are someone who should NOT be carrying a gun.

jdkelly
July 26, 2005, 05:32 PM
The kid deserved it.---Alex45

Alex tell us you just said that off the cuff and you don't really mean it, please.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

CannibalCrowley
July 26, 2005, 05:43 PM
The kids didn't deserve it, but it is one of those "Darwin wins" situations. At 15 and 17 they weren't exactly innocent little children and they should've expected something bad to happen as a result of their actions.

A whole lot of things could have happened, they just happened to hit a guy who decided to come back and shoot them instead of one who would've reported their actions to the police and filed charges.

Vern Humphrey
July 26, 2005, 05:46 PM
This was a bad shooting, and the guy who did it will and should serve time.

On the other hand, there have been a couple of cases of little punks going around and shooting people with paintball guns, and taking videos of it.

If I were on the jury, and a man said, "I heard the shot, felt the impact, and what I thought was blood, so I returned fire" -- I'd have to find that guy Not Guilty.

VTKFJoe
July 26, 2005, 05:47 PM
The kid deserved it. I have no tolerance for morons who damage other people's property

Wow :eek: you have to be kidding me.

GunGoBoom
July 26, 2005, 06:22 PM
The kid deserved it.

Absolutely not. No one deserves a death sentence, sans judge & jury, for committing malicious mischief (vandalism). You must be a plant here on THR to make us look bad.

What is a little odd to me is that it was the 15 y.o. boy who died, who was only hit in the leg - must have gotten him in the femoral. Sad. He needed a whoopin, but most definitely not a killin'. Like Vern says, the shooter should and will serve time - that's murder - the jury could find manslaughter if he was justified in being angered/provoked, which he was. If I was on the jury, he'd get manslaughter and about 7-10 years.

MikeIsaj
July 26, 2005, 06:38 PM
Throwing eggs at cars is bad. Not bad enough to warrant execution, but bad.

Going home, getting a gun, going back to the scene and gunning down two kids is very bad. Interesting how he was mad enough to do all that but never thought of reporting it to the cops.

The shooter should be found and charged with homicide.

The kid did not deserve to die but, I'm not going to cry for him. He took a chance and lost.

lysander
July 26, 2005, 06:43 PM
...and so here we are...back again...with the same cold and callous responses to what is an obvious tragedy. Replace eggs with bottle rockets and we've seen this as recently as just a few days ago.

Do not defend the actions of this shooter.

Do not make off the cuff comments that indicate a couple of teenagers hurling eggs should be shot.

Do not attribute their deaths to some kind of idiotic social darwinism.

Tragedy...you know...the kind of literature or theater in which characters suffer horrible loss or devastation as a result of their flaws. Art does imitate life...and people do suffer because they are flawed. That doesn't mean someone outside the tragic events should revel in the outcome. Perhaps those who make the callous statements have never been touched by a serious personal loss...

Bear in mind that someone lost a son, a brother, or a friend and another family will be destroyed because the shooter, once found, will go to prison. The moral of the story shouldn't be that "life is tough when you are stupid." The moral of the story should be that rash action delivers rash results and sometimes (nearly always) it is better to simply walk away.

DirtyBrad
July 26, 2005, 07:20 PM
Deserved it?

I guess I'm the only one around here that ever egged or TPed anyone's house when I was a kid.

Rich K
July 26, 2005, 07:31 PM
The kids DID NOT deserve to be shot.They needed to be chewed out,made to clean up the mess .The moron who shot them is just that,a moron.He was gone,but he had to come back and have his last word.I hope they get him and throw the book at him.

KAR120C
July 26, 2005, 07:35 PM
It obviously wasn't a justified shooting. This guy will give us a bad name. He should do time.

Having said that... throwing anything at cars is not a prank :cuss: , it is assault with possible deadly consequences. Image tooling down the road at 40 mph, minding your own business, the breeze in your hair, when all of the sudden you get hit in the eye with an egg. As it shatters the shell jagged shell penetrates your eye. You lose control of your vehicle, and crash head on into oncomming traffic, or mow over some pedestrians, etc...

I had something similar happen to me, only with a home made explosive, instead of eggs. The response from the cops/911 was less than pathetic. I'm talking keystone cops. Apparently they won't react until someone is actually hurt.

Ocassionally bad things happen to people who pull this kind of crap. These kids chose to take the risk. Personally I'm not going to lose any sleep over them. Note to parents out there... explain to your kids not to f**k with people :banghead: . You'll certainly be making them better citizens, and you just may be saving their lives.

BryanP
July 26, 2005, 07:40 PM
The kid was being stupid. That doesn't justify 1st degree murder, which is what the shooter did. If they catch him he should fry - literally.

Cesiumsponge
July 26, 2005, 07:41 PM
Marion County, Ind., sheriff's deputies said that after the juveniles hit one motorist in the face, the man drove off

Its not completely clear if the motorist hit in the face is the same man who shot the kids judging the way that sentence was constructed.

Things could turn out differently. Assuming the guy was the one who got egged right in the face, he could have lost control of his vehicle and killed someone else or himself, and the kids would likewise be in deep sheet trouble for it.

If the guy never went back for his gun and shot one of them, the kids might continue egging motor vehicles. They might have ended up hitting a driver in the face in control of a cargovan full of girlscouts, resulting in the driver getting in an accident which gets everyone in the 16-passenger van killed. Maybe, the eggers would stop on their own accord.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Looks like karma decided to pick a stiffer consequence for those kids. It's a sad situation any way you put it.

NineseveN
July 26, 2005, 07:43 PM
...and so here we are...back again...with the same cold and callous responses to what is an obvious tragedy. Replace eggs with bottle rockets and we've seen this as recently as just a few days ago.

Whoa nellie, this is a little different. This was, while a potentially dangerous act, not the same. Bottle rockets and fireworks are illegal in a lot of municipalities/cities/states, I don't know any region that bans eggs. The reason why one is illegal and the other is not, is because one, even when used properly can be very dangerous, the other is normally not.

A bottle rocket is an explosive projectile, an egg is a shell-encased embryo. Totally different. These kids, while not deserving the death penalty, should be held VERY accountable for both the vandalism, assault and possibly the death of their friend.

The shooter should go to jail for a very long time, period.


Do not defend the actions of this shooter.

Do not make off the cuff comments that indicate a couple of teenagers hurling eggs should be shot.

I can understand how someone not wrapped too tight would go off like that, people get shot over much less. I don't blame him for being pissed, but to shoot someone, wow...not good.


Do not attribute their deaths to some kind of idiotic social darwinism.

Hard not to, stupid tends to either get you elected to public office or killed. They should have known better. What they did was a crime, period. they endangered the lives of others. Sadly, one of them died because of it.


Tragedy...you know...the kind of literature or theater in which characters suffer horrible loss or devastation as a result of their flaws. Art does imitate life...and people do suffer because they are flawed. That doesn't mean someone outside the tragic events should revel in the outcome. Perhaps those who make the callous statements have never been touched by a serious personal loss...

Bear in mind that someone lost a son, a brother, or a friend and another family will be destroyed because the shooter, once found, will go to prison. The moral of the story shouldn't be that "life is tough when you are stupid." The moral of the story should be that rash action delivers rash results and sometimes (nearly always) it is better to simply walk away.

I think both morals apply. If that somehow makes me callous, even though I think the shooter should never see the light of day, then so be it.

CajunBass
July 26, 2005, 07:55 PM
I had a kid egg my brand new Jeep CJ (I picked it up that very day) once, years ago. My son saw the kid and knew who it was. I went to his house, talked to his mother, and she beat that poor kid so bad I felt sorry for him. I'll bet he never cracked an egg in a fry pan after that.

P95Carry
July 26, 2005, 07:56 PM
Stupid, stupid kids - thoughtless and punk behavior but NOT death warrant stuff.

Sad to see some (as usual) non THR comments and suggestions. Hardly does ''the cause'' a whole lotta good. The driver was an idiot grade 1 and I hope was not a legit CCW.

Mannlicher
July 26, 2005, 08:03 PM
I saw this earlier in the day. Sad that the kid was shot. Sad that his behavior, and that of his homies led to this. Might not be PC, but when you create the possiblilty for extreme reaction, you should not be surprised when it happens.
That having been said, it was really stupid for the motorist to shoot the little miscreant.

I notice also, many of the responders making statements like 'tell their parents, and they will be punished. '
I think this is a case of the parents don't exist, don't care, or would egg the cars themselves. I hardly think this is the first anti social act these hooligans have committed. Probably won't be the last either. Well, it will be the last for one of them.

Cesiumsponge
July 26, 2005, 08:07 PM
Like I mentioned earlier...there are crazies out there and it's best not to provoke them, even if you think it's harmless. What might once be considered harmless fun with consequences being a stiff fist-shaking from the recipient no longer seems to be the norm in today's high-strung society.

I rarely even use the horn on my car anymore if someone cuts me off or tries to be an arsehole. You never know if that guy is a jackalope that forgot his pink pills that morning and tries to run you off the road or shoot out his window.

mongo
July 26, 2005, 08:12 PM
Alex45ACP... I think you need to explain your reply. Are you saying it was justified to shoot the teen because he egged the guys truck? I sure hope it was tongue in cheek, or perhaps in reference to the previous reply about the drunk kid getting chewed out by his dad.
If you are serious about the egger, you need some serious help. Do YOU have kids? How would you feel if some sociopath shot YOUR kid because he threw an egg at his vehicle?
You need to clarify your response ASAP.

Phyphor
July 26, 2005, 08:13 PM
the kids were idiots...but the shooter is an even BIGGER imbecile. THIS sort of crap does nothing but severe damage to our rights to carry firearms. Gun grabbers WILL point to this incident in the weeks / months /years ahead as a shining example as to why "more gun control" is needed.

culleniii
July 26, 2005, 09:55 PM
I have been a teacher and worked with juvenile offenders for 6 years. If you dont think you can shoot a kid then you need to rethink your self defense.
As many crimes-- at least 50% involve juveniles. The two incidents I have been involved with were both juveniles, armed robbery and home invasion. I view them as more dangerous then adult criminals as they dont think about consequences at all.

In this incident hummm-

I think the kids were worm food and pretty much wont amount to anything good in there life anyhoo. Good kids dont hang out at an overpass and hit people with eggs. End of story.

I think they defiently deserved a serious beating---not neccesarily killed but oh well.

Maybe the person that killed them is not a "good guy" ----there are bad guys out there and they dont care if kid or not--play with fire expect to be burned.

Why werent the other kids charged with crimes?

AK-74me
July 26, 2005, 10:07 PM
Whoa nellie, this is a little different. This was, while a potentially dangerous act, not the same. Bottle rockets and fireworks are illegal in a lot of municipalities/cities/states, I don't know any region that bans eggs. The reason why one is illegal and the other is not, is because one, even when used properly can be very dangerous, the other is normally not.

Thats right and the only thing the guy in the bottle rocket case was guilty of was chasing a kid ( who happen to run in traffic but....), this case is totally different. Come on going and getting a gun and coming back and then shooting egg throwers? That is a bit different in my book then stopping your car and chasing the little punk who just shot you with a bottle rocket.

spacemanspiff
July 26, 2005, 10:15 PM
and if a driver didnt know what was hitting the vehicle, swerved, and died in a crash, or hit someone else who then died, wouldnt we be stringing these kids up wanting to charge them with criminally negligent homicide?

not saying the shooter was in the right, but they should have known better.

i also object to the egg-hurler being described as a 'boy'. juvenile delinquent is more applicable than 'poor innocent boy who was a straight a student on the honor role and played quarterback on the high school football team and selflessly spent 300 hours a month doing community service and donated 25 gallons of blood each week.'

:scrutiny:

Clean97GTI
July 26, 2005, 10:17 PM
kids will be kids.

In a perfect world, they wouldn't have thrown any eggs.
In a not so perfect world, they would have been caught and held responsible for damages.
In our world, the guy grabbed a gun and shot two people.

he should go to prison for a long time.

mmike87
July 26, 2005, 10:23 PM
We reap what we sow.

JohnKSa
July 26, 2005, 10:35 PM
James Patterson was one of the boys involved in the egg-throwing incident. ...he just shot a minor over some eggs," Patterson said."All the children I've known talk this way... :rolleyes: It it just me or does it sound like this kid knows his way around legalese just a little too well?

The kids were stupid and engaged in criminal behavior.
The parents should have controlled their kids better.
The shooter is an idiot and a criminal.

As usual there's more than enough blame to go around.

Shooting someone for egging a car--even a moving car is way over the top and if they catch the guy, they should fry him. It's premeditated murder and he deserves to die for his crime. Furthermore, the shooter is a dangerous person--I have to doubt that this is the very first time he's ever done something violent.

Still, a very tiny little part of me hopes they don't catch him...

NavyDoc
July 26, 2005, 10:45 PM
I'm an M.D.
In the E.D. I once had to deal with a mom (27 years old) and her daughter (18 months old) killed (I declaired both DOA) when mom lost controll of their car after some punk ass decided it would be fun to throw ???? onto traffic from a highway overpass.
I've NO sympathy for idiots that do this. Sorry.

NineseveN
July 26, 2005, 10:49 PM
Yeah Doc, I'm not saying I feel bad for the kid, Darwin works in pretty obvious ways, but the shooter was a complete tool and needs to go down too. Everyone's guilty in this scenario.

Stevie-Ray
July 26, 2005, 10:52 PM
I'm surprised I survived my childhood actually when I see this... :D Hahahahahaha! Same here!

NavyDoc
July 26, 2005, 10:52 PM
I'm not saying the shooter was right (not a justifyable use of deadly force = murder). I'm saying that I have no sympathy for the egg thrower either.

XLMiguel
July 26, 2005, 10:53 PM
There was as similar incident a couple of weeks ago, (don't recall where, maybe Philly?) where similar aged kids were throwing eggs, hit a car with a couple of twenty-somethings in it. They went around the block and came back to chase the kids and give 'em a whoopin'. One guy caught a one of the kids, while the driver chased the other. In the course of the pursuit, the other kid ran into traffic to get away and was hit & killed. The guy doing the chasing is being charged with manslaughter, IIRC.

Point is, some pranks that the pranksters think are more or less harmless can go seriously wrong, even deadly seriously wrong. Some people can't take a joke. While I agree that stupidity shoud be painful, it shouldn't be deadly, but sometimes it is. The butt-much with a gun deserves to have his head handed to him, the guy that chased the kid into traffic, well, he didn't do that on purpose. But life ain't fair, four lives ruined, and the little punks shouldn't have been out throwing eggs in the first place. Some parenting needed in both cases.

NineseveN
July 26, 2005, 10:56 PM
Mike, you sure that wasn' the Bottle Rocket story? We had a healthy debate on that once just recently, unless the same thing happened to some kids throwing eggs too.

Spreadfire Arms
July 26, 2005, 11:10 PM
two years ago i was walking to my car which was about 4 blocks away when a car full of drunk teenagers started throwing cherry bombs at me. i was carrying a Sig P220 .45.

rather than draw, i figured they were on a one way street going N/B as I was walking S/B. i hurried on foot S/B so by the time they got around the block to find me i'd be out of sight.

granted if they confronted me, and i was outnumbered, i probably would have drawn.

but since i wasn't "in danger" of being injured by the cherry bombs (i.e. they were landing near me but not so close as to possibly injure me) i didn't think i had the justifiable right to use deadly force and fire on their vehicle.

MechAg94
July 26, 2005, 11:37 PM
I don't have much sympathy for either side of this one. Both are wrong.

We reap what we sow. The shooter will also one way or another.

gunsmith
July 27, 2005, 01:50 AM
in the Bronx & about 10 years old me and a friend threw dirt bombs at passing cars, what we called dirt bombs were little cakes of dried dirt and we didn't hurt anyone.
A guy got out of his car with a baseball bat and chased us for a half hour
and I never did anything else like that again.
Soon after that my dad stopped letting me hang out with that "friend".
Later that guy went back to the same bridge with another kid and they threw rocks and broke windshields this went on for a week until the cops chased them down with their guns drawn-they weren't caught.
My dad forced me into the Scouts, & never let me hang out with those kids again.
Last I heard one was dead from an overdose and the other is in prison ..... I resented the heck out of my dad at the time but now I wish my dad was still alive to hear me say....thanks dad!

only1asterisk
July 27, 2005, 02:17 AM
I don't have much sympathy for either side of this one. Both are wrong.

Nor do I. The shooter is less than sane and guilty of murder. The junior criminals here bit off more than they could chew. Sometimes life is harsh.

David

TechBrute
July 27, 2005, 08:37 AM
I wonder if the kid would have thrown the egg at someone he knew had a gun...

Khaotic
July 27, 2005, 09:18 AM
Murder, pure and simple - he drove off, collected his weapon AND CAME BACK.
Then he opened fire on them, so this wasn't a bad temper, spur of the moment bout of rage or loss of control, he knew what he was doing.

That's premeditated and intentional, and I would go so far as to say, inexcusable.

From my understanding of the situation from the limited information we have seen, the proper charge is murder in the second degree, not manslaughter.

I'm not a lawyer, but nor am I illiterate.

-K

Janitor
July 27, 2005, 09:42 AM
"I think they defiently deserved a serious beating---not neccesarily killed but oh well."

"Oh well"?

C'mon people. This was a stupid dangerous prank being played by teenagers who were not watched closely enough by their parents.

The shooter was pissed enough to drive home, get a gun, come back, and shoot them, killing one of them and attempting to kill the other. He was gone from the site long enough to get his gun and come back - this was NOT self defense at any level, by any stretch of the imagination. How many kids would he have murdered there if he were actually a good shot?

If this incident hadn't happened, how long would it have been before this guy was pissed enough to kill somebody else for some other reason? This is NOT the way to put a stop to dangerous behavior. There would have been several appropriate responses. Murder isn't on the list.

What teenage boy isn't a jerk now and again? Being an ********* does not mean you deserve to die.

I hope they lock up the shooter for a long, long time.

XLMiguel
July 27, 2005, 10:19 AM
NineseveN - You're right, I stand corrected. They say the mind is the second thing to go, I ferget the first. :eek:

Missashot
July 27, 2005, 11:12 AM
This is a very sad situation indeed. Junior had just got his life turned around and got that full scholarship to Harvard and was just celebrating. :barf:
While I don't agree that the shooter should have went back home and picked up his gun, I certainly can see why he would be angry. I know that I paid WAY too much money for my car to have some punk @ss kid throw things at it. While I will not kill some over it, I can understand his frustration. It is NOT a funny joke or a prank. (It never has been). My parents would have beaten me to within an inch of my life had they caught me doing something like that.
I agree that there is plenty of blame here. 1.The juvenile delinquents for throwing the eggs. 2.The out of control shooter for not cooling down before coming back and killing someone. 3.And mostly the parents for not having a rats @ss idea as to where their "pride and joy" kids were and what they were doing. And not teaching them to leave other people and their property alone! :what:

NineseveN
July 27, 2005, 11:35 AM
NineseveN - You're right, I stand corrected. They say the mind is the second thing to go, I ferget the first.

Lol, I like that, might have to borrow that quip from ya. :cool:

TheEgg
July 27, 2005, 12:16 PM
Does no one care about this from TheEggs point of view?

Eggicide <shudder>.

Janitor
July 27, 2005, 12:18 PM
*brrrrrr*

Sorry. Never thought about the poor egg. Have to wonder now how the chicken must be suffering over the loss.

NineseveN
July 27, 2005, 12:19 PM
This is the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken was involved, the egg was committed. :neener:

Kjervin
July 27, 2005, 01:05 PM
1. - Not so sure the antis willfind this case of much use. They like stories of multiple killings or where someone shoots a cherished relative on by mistake. As we have seen so far onthis thread, people can understand why the shooter shot (even if they think it was an overreaction) and what the shooter was responding to was potentially dangerous (even if he was not in danger at the time he shot). I am sure there are stronger cases for them to bring up to make their point.

2.there is a difference between a prank and mischeif. This was not a prank. A prank is egging or throwing TP in the trees of your ex-girlfriend or math teacher. These kids chose to have fun by messing with total strangers without any thought to the consequences. If someone had to die as a result of their actions, it is more appropriate it is one of the perpretrators that someone passing by. As a point to ponder, they were still there by the time that the shooter got back. I take that to mean that they would egg cars until they ran out of eggs, the police came, or they caused someone to drive off the road. The thing that causes me to not have too much sympathy for the kids is that (and I realize that I am attributing this to them as opposed to having any proof) if someone did get injured as a result of their actions, the kids would be as like to think it was "cool" as be mortified for what they had done.

3.Returning to the scene after leaving is never a good idea. The shooter showed bad judgement and should have to face the consequences of their actions (including jail time). Assuming the guy has a conscience at all, even if he is never caught, he will still suffer for what he has done. He needed to have learned that sometimes it is not your place to right all wrongs.

4. I wish this story was a bigger story then it is. Maybe then kids and adults alike could learn something from the mistakes of others and not make those mistakes themselves.

5.To those who expressed the idea that kids will be kids: the problem is that you cannot reason with life. Maybe the parents didn't think the mischief was a big deal, but rightly or wrongly, life chose to give them a dead child because of it. Maybe if the parents thought it was a bigger deal, their child would not be dead. Bottom line, the kids died because he had character issues and was unlucky enough to run into someone who also had character issues. Sometimes you survive those meetings, sometimes you don't.

Kj

Dave Dembinski
July 27, 2005, 01:23 PM
I guess I'm the only one around here that ever egged or TPed anyone's house when I was a kid.

Houses don't generally careen off the road into a tree when you throw an egg at their windows. They do take just as long to clean dried egg off of, though. :evil:

These kids are idiots and deserve a punishment severe enough to convince them not to try it again, but I'm with NineseveN. The shooter should be locked up for a very long time.

Sistema1927
July 27, 2005, 01:36 PM
Cold blooded murder. Lock the shooter up forever and throw away the key.

He left the scene, and came back with a gun. That is pre-meditated murder. There was no threat to his life at the time of the shooting. There is no valid defense for this act of violence. I hope he never sees the light of day again.

NineseveN
July 27, 2005, 01:38 PM
Houses don't generally careen off the road into a tree when you throw an egg at their windows.

Someone owes me a new keyboard. :D

MICHAEL T
July 27, 2005, 06:05 PM
If you were driving along and got a Brick thru your windsheild Would you feel it would ok to defend yourself then. I was almost killed from a brick thru the wind shield of my 18 wheeler(hit just to my right) I did suffer minor injurys and I will say if I would have had a pistol likely lead would have been flying. They were also 16&17 year olds and court didn't do crap to them.
What driver did was wrong but the others should be charged for the death of their friend also. They didn't pull the trigger, but set the event in motion by their actions.

Andrew Rothman
July 27, 2005, 07:20 PM
The shooter is less than sane and guilty of murder. The junior criminals here bit off more than they could chew. Sometimes life is harsh.

And that is the most succinct summary I have seen. Bravo!

bluto
July 28, 2005, 01:14 AM
The shooter committed premeditated murder. He's a moron, a murderer, and a disgrace to gun owners everywhere.

Good thing some kid somewhere didn't play with matches outside that guy's house. I can just imagine him running outside and gunning down "little Billy". Mechanic botches a brake job on his car? Heck, this guy coulda' died! Time to run home for the Glock 21! Someone cuts him off on the freeway? Get his liscense. Plenty of time to go home, load up, and teach that guy a lesson.

He was not hurt severely enough to even have to go to a hospital. His life was no longer in immediate danger. He was not defending his life. He did not call the police. This guy should be locked up for good.

Substitute "water balloons" for eggs in this scenario. Could have caused just as much damage. Kids have been doing stupid things for thousands of years. Sometimes they cause great harm. Then they deserve to be punished. The kids may have committed assault. But it was not assault to committ murder. They may have gone to jail. O.K. Good. Their parents may have been sued in civil court. O.K. Good.

But if the shooter had called police, they certainly would have been caught and punished. I didn't know that we now approved of the death penalty for kids who throw eggs.

Kjervin
July 28, 2005, 01:46 AM
If the kids committed an assualt, which is a felony, and someone died, why isn't a felony murder charge being considered? Why aren't the parents blaming the other kids who convinced their kid to go 'a eggin'?
Kj

athlon64
July 28, 2005, 01:54 AM
Well, I'm sure all of those "kids" now know what can happen nowadays when you inflict a stupid random act on a stranger. They could just as well have done it to a car full of gang members and things may have turned out much worse. Lesson learned -- there are very dangerous people out there kiddies... have fun, but respect others and their property.

As for the shooter, he shoulda just called the cops on 'em.

odysseus
July 28, 2005, 03:39 AM
The kid deserved it. I have no tolerance for morons who damage other people's property

:barf: . What's your dysfunction? What happened to you in your life?

Yeah, teenage prankster deserves homicide by adult. Truly sad for anyone to actually write that down.

...taking a deep breath now. Calm... calm...

Spiphel Rike
July 28, 2005, 08:14 AM
These kids sound like complete idiots. Getting hit through an open window by an egg will screw with your ability to drive, he could have gone off the road and killed someone or caused a car crash. He shouldn't have killed them, they shouldn't have thrown stuff at him.

I would be very understanding if he administered a beating to both of them, or at least a good old blast of pepper spray. The kids' parents were obviously not doing their job, any court case would result in a negligible punishment.

This shooter does deserve a punishment, manslaughter at the least. he makes us all look bad, but those scumbag kids make people my age (17) look bad too.

there should be a compulsory public flogging for kids caught doing this.

MikeB
July 28, 2005, 08:37 AM
Everyone should belay this premeditated murder stuff for the time being, if they don't even know who the shooter is. How do they know he actually drove home and retrieved a firearm? As usual our "news" people wrote an article with incomplete, unproven "facts" thrown in.

Of course regardless, this is likely a very very bad shoot. Personally I have less than zero sympathy for the juvenile deliquents involved in the story. It is never OK to vandalize others property or risk a catastrophe, just because it's a prank and you're a teenager.

Browns Fan
July 28, 2005, 08:50 AM
I can remember looking at the wrong end of a revolver after I had gotten caught throwing snowballs at cars as a kid. Didnt get shot, but I sure got pistol whipped. Only damage was my pride and broken glasses, thank God.

NineseveN
July 28, 2005, 09:31 AM
Everyone should belay this premeditated murder stuff for the time being, if they don't even know who the shooter is. How do they know he actually drove home and retrieved a firearm? As usual our "news" people wrote an article with incomplete, unproven "facts" thrown in.

Wow, good point, and it took until the bottom of page three for someone to point that out? I think sometimes we're pretty quick to try and analyze the situation as-is, without getting all the facts simply because, most stories like this are brushed under the rug if the end story turns out to be pro-shooter or bad news for the delinquents.

Good catch though, can't believe that was missed so easily.

El Tejon
July 28, 2005, 09:40 AM
FYI, update on the case from the ground. Police announced yesterday that they are responding to this alleged murder by cracking down on curfew violations by teens.

They should revoke the parenting licenses of the parents involved. :fire:

Nothing further on the arrest of the alleged shooter.

Old Dog
July 28, 2005, 02:08 PM
Personally I have less than zero sympathy for the juvenile deliquents involved in the story. It is never OK to vandalize others property or risk a catastrophe, just because it's a prank and you're a teenager.
While I understand this sentiment, I do wonder a bit about childhood experiences of some of the posters in this thread.

On the subject of childhood pranks -- many young people participate in "pranks" and other sorts of mischievous activity. Many of these same young people are not criminals, will never be criminals, and are actually possessed of, if not high, at least normal intelligence. Most people grow out of this phase ... granted, some never do ...

Case in point: I was a bit of a hellion in my youth, and, although I was not stupid, did much stupid stuff, such as engaging in BB gun fights with my brothers, and even, on one or two occasions, did some throwing of dirtclods and snowballs at cars passing by -- and --gasp --maybe once we even tossed a few eggs at some cars. We (my younger brother and I) otherwise engaged in no other criminal activity ... my brother graduated from an Ivy League school, served in the U.S. Army and is now a highly successful engineer with much responsibility ... I was a Nat'l Merit Scholar in high school, a decent athlete and good citizen, went on to college and a pretty successful military career.

Strangely enough, our parents were successful, totally engaged in our upbringing, always there for us, gave us excellent advice and guidance, were very loving and raised us in a fairly religious, conservative environment and morals/ethics were constantly stressed to us ... We were punished strictly when caught doing anything wrong. Yet -- we still did performed some childish "pranks."

My point is this: every time there is a thread where some young person ends up crippled or dead, he (it's always a he, it seems) is quickly labeled as a juvenile delinquent who surely was already embarked on what would have turned out to be a lifetime of criminal activity.

Isn't it possible that, just once in while, there is simply a case of a kid doing something stupid and something bad results? I for one am growing weary of the "Darwinism in action" and "Kid got what he deserved" statements followed by recitations from various members relating how they were victims of serious crime committed by a teenager, how teenagers can be just as vicious as adult criminals, and how this generation isn't being properly parented. Those are not the real points, or the lessons, of these stories ... The point is the response of the ADULTS present at these situations.

I do have sympathy for the kids in the story, and I still will even if it turns out they really were juvenile delinquents.

carebear
July 28, 2005, 02:17 PM
I too was not and am not a delinquent and I had and have good parents.

I pulled off both pranks and minor crimes so I know whereof I speak.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Here in the really-real world you pays your money and you takes your chances. Kids who pull pranks like that DO think of the consequences, else they wouldn't do them at night or from cover or distance. Also, it is common knowledge to anyone with a brain and a modicum of tv watching that there are psychos out there who overreact to minor insults. These kids almost certainly go to school with some.

Ergo, they have no excuse for not considering the "worst case" scenario of someone coming at them in a grossly over-reactive manner. What happened is wrong and the shooter should be punished severely if caught, but it is a not unreasonable to expect reality.

The end result is on them both for choosing to pull their little prank AND for not thinking their little plan through better. They just happened to be on the spot when the psycho card turned up on the draw.

It shouldn't have happened, but they controlled the outcome the whole way. So my sympathy and outrage are both a bit muted.

brian roberts
July 28, 2005, 05:20 PM
It IS possible to be blinded, as a result of the eye being cut by the eggshell on contact. 'course, nobody would have found the kids then, or their parents would have begged out, or, some lawyer would have found some way to deflect responsibility. "....just a childish "prank" that went wrong, your honor...." While lamentable, just the "luck of the draw". :uhoh:

Now, take the number of survivors of this fiasco, multiply by around three, & that's probably the number of FUTURE kids who will be lectured NOT TO THROW THINGS AT CARS!!! One day i was driving on a little road, some kid hit my ol' veedub with a stone, i kept on going, turned around, came back, drove right up on mom's lawn, & stopped at the steps. the kid had a horrified look on his face, turned & said something, probably to the effect, "There's some guy here to talk to you...HURRY!!" mom's eyes were POPPING out of her head. i stood there calmly as she opened the door, then said very quietly, & nicely, "you really should teach your son that its not NICE to throw stones at cars" Jaws working, eyes popping more, i can't even remember what she said, but she informed me she would be swattin' junior's behind, while slapping the hell out of his head for emphasis, she yanked him back into the dark confines of the house.....
never will forget her look as she came to the door, saw the VW, & me, climbin' up on her porch.....made it all worth it...wasn't even ticked after that. :cool:

NineseveN
July 28, 2005, 05:52 PM
And that's the right thing to do, that or call the cops.

The shooter was wrong, no doubt and he should be locked up for it, but those kids should be getting in a buttload of trouble too.

And yes, I pulled pranks when I was a kid, and deserved everything I got when I was caught, in fact, I was lucky, I deserved much worse.

You don't bet on lucky.

XLMiguel
July 28, 2005, 06:38 PM
Um, I'm pretty sure that the point of egging cars is to provoke a response, I mean, just hiting a moving car is hardly challenging, eh?

It seems the dumschitz got more than they bargained for, and I'm by no means excusing the shooter, he deserves the full weight of the law, but like I said earlier, some people can't take a joke, and they found one who really couldn't take one. Bad judgment all around, especially engaging in risky behavior without consideration for the consequenses. :scrutiny:

OTOH, maybe it's just another kind of natural selection. If I were to engage in such an activity, I would do so from cover, so as not to be seen, and I'd have me a fool proof escape route that made pursuit very difficult and with lots of opportunities for evasion and escape. These guys were obviously too dumb to figure it out. :evil:

JohnKSa
July 28, 2005, 09:59 PM
the man drove off before returning with a gunHe left the scene and then returned to do the shooting. Whether or not he went to get the gun or already had it with him, by leaving the scene and then coming back, he gives up any chance at a "heat of the moment" defense. It's premeditated.

Stevie-Ray
July 28, 2005, 11:07 PM
What driver did was wrong but the others should be charged for the death of their friend also. They didn't pull the trigger, but set the event in motion by their actions. Yep. They're guilty at least as much as the other driver mentioned that chased the kid into traffic. If he's being charged with manslaughter, why should these punks get off scott free?

MikeB
July 28, 2005, 11:16 PM
He left the scene and then returned to do the shooting.

We only have the statements of the delinquents upon which to base that "fact"; for all we know he only fired after confronting them and them pulling a firearm on him or her.

Again I'm pretty sure this is a very bad shoot, but an awful lot of people here are basing their responses upon this being a "childish prank" when it was anything but. We complain when the anti's consider a 16 or 17 year old as a child in shooting statistics. Are we hypocrites or do we consider someone this age to know better, it can't be both.

Many of these same young people are not criminals, will never be criminals,

Uhm they became criminals the second they threw an egg at someones car.

While I wan't a perfect angle as a child I well knew the difference between endangering myself, my friends and our own property vs. that of a stranger. There is no excuse whatsoever for damaging or attempting to damage the property of a stranger or endanger a stranger.

Lemon328i
July 28, 2005, 11:29 PM
While the shoot certainly sounds like second degree murder, who's to say that the shooter isn't already a wanted criminal? The criminals who threw the eggs might simply have riled up another criminal who responded with the language of the streets. Typical gun owners do not simply fly off the handle as indicated in the article. It was likely someone who already has a history of violence or a criminal record.

To those who think "throwing eggs" is just a prank, have you ever been hit with one while driving? It would be no different than being hit by a small rock, which is considered assault in nearly every jurisdiction.

bill123
July 29, 2005, 12:12 AM
I feel safer. Probably neither meant to kill the other. The possibility existed. Parents are responsible for teaching their kids the lessons that keep them alive. Guess these parents were too busy. Shooter hit what he aimed at and no innocents were hurt. Life goes one

mongo
July 29, 2005, 12:14 AM
Still waiting Alex....

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 01:02 AM
We only have the statements of the delinquents upon which to base that "fact"; for all we know he only fired after confronting them and them pulling a firearm on him or her.Actually the article attributes that statmment to the "deputies". It doesn't say who told them. I guess you could assume that the boys told him, but then you'd be doing the same thing you're accusing others of--making statements based on assumptions you've made about the article. ;)

It happened on a public road so I'm not sure how reasonable it is to assume that there were no witnesses other than the "participants".

I'll restate, nevertheless. "IF WE TAKE THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE AT FACE VALUE then the shooting was a premeditated murder since the shooter left the scene and returned later to do the shooting."

Personally, I'd like to see the surviving kids charged with manslaughter for participating in actions leading to the death of their friend. The fact that the shooter is a criminal doesn't absolve the kids of their criminal behavior.

MikeB
July 29, 2005, 01:28 AM
Actually the article attributes that statmment to the "deputies". It doesn't say who told them. I guess you could assume that the boys told him, but then you'd be doing the same thing you're accusing others of--making statements based on assumptions you've made about the article.

Not true.

Here are the relevant quotes. Note one is actually a reporter stating what he says a deputy said and the other is a quote from one of the "children" involved. There is no direct statement from a deputy in the article.

Marion County, Ind., sheriff's deputies said that after the juveniles hit one motorist in the face, the man drove off before returning with a gun, shooting one 15-year-old boy in the leg and another 17-year-old boy in the stomach.

James Patterson was one of the boys involved in the egg-throwing incident.

"I think they should find him (the shooter). I don't know where he is right now, but I hope he regrets what he did because he just shot a minor over some eggs," Patterson said. "He didn't have to take it to the extreme. He could've just called the cops. He didn't have to go home, get a gun and come back and shoot us."

There is also no evidence or even indication in the article of any other witness than the "children" involved in the incident.

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 02:54 AM
Marion County, Ind., sheriff's deputies said that ... the man drove off before returning with a gunClearly the sheriff's deputies DID say that he left and then returned before shooting. We don't know what evidence prompted them to say that although we can ASSUME that at least part of that evidence consisted of statements from the kids.

So how's this? You ASSUME that there were no other witnesses (article doesn't say there were nor does it say there weren't), and that the statements of the kids was the ONLY evidence leading the deputies to say that the man left and then returned (article doesn't say that). I'll ASSUME that the man DID leave the scene and return before shooting (the article DOES say that in two places).

I think that's fair--at least until we have something OTHER than the article upon which to base this discussion. ;)

So, let me try this again:

IF WE TAKE THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE AT FACE VALUE then the shooting was a premeditated murder since the shooter left the scene and returned later to do the shooting."

carebear
July 29, 2005, 03:32 AM
Just noticed the kid actually pointed out he just shot a minor over some eggs," Patterson said (emphasis mine)

When a kid knows/cares enough to pull the "minor" card (which is legal-ese) it implies to me that kid has more than a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system. :scrutiny:

odysseus
July 29, 2005, 03:39 AM
When a kid knows/cares enough to pull the "minor" card (which is legal-ese) it implies to me that kid has more than a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system.

Huh??? Maybe it could be that this interview has been after the fact and he has heard a lot of cops talking about their age in these terms? Either way, it's jumping to a conclusion.

Personally I think a lot of the reactions here so far are very naive, in regards to justifying the shooting. Of course the teens were bad, but I can't believe this thread is going on so long with people trying to justify the killing of a human being over this. It's embarassing to read as a "highroader".

I can tell many here are also minors, nor are they parents, or maybe didn't have a "normal" adolescent life....

The world must be a crazy, crazy place for some with some of the reasoning here.

...I really tried not to respond again... argh...

Randy in Arizona
July 29, 2005, 03:51 AM
MikeBWhile I wan't a perfect angle as a child

Mike I'm sure you were an acute angle though! :neener:

carebear
July 29, 2005, 03:57 AM
odysseus,

I'm 34, and hardly a naif.

It has been my experience that kids who have spent some time in Juvi know very well they can get away with stuff because they are "minors" (under 18) most non-JV-at-crime kids don't think that way.

And don't mistake a lack of sympathy for stupid kids suffering the not-unreasonable-to-foresee consequences of their actions with a lack of condemnation of the shooter.

Of COURSE he shouldn't of shot them. :rolleyes:

BUT if they hadn't thrown the eggs (or alternately thrown and got out of Dodge like anyone with half a brain) they wouldn't have been there for Mr.-psycho-who-should-spend-the-last-painful-years-of-his-wasted-life-in-prison to be shooting AT.

As a corollary, many of us did like things and at least were not dumb or incompetent or unlucky enough to get caught.

"Don't play with fire..." and all that. :rolleyes:

c_yeager
July 29, 2005, 06:51 AM
By the age of 17 these kids are old enough to be judged on their own. There comes a point when parenting is irrelevant and people can take credit for their own stupidity. These guys are within a year of being able to join the U.S. military and be issued a weapon. To my mind they are old enough to tell the difference between actions that are stupid and actions that arent, and choose accordingly.

I cant help but think that throwing debris at moving vehicles is a felony. if a person dies in the commission of a felony their accomplises can (and should) be charged with first-degree murder. Why is it that the other kids dont appear to be in any trouble at all?

MikeB
July 29, 2005, 07:21 AM
IF WE TAKE THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE AT FACE VALUE then the shooting was a premeditated murder since the shooter left the scene and returned later to do the shooting."

You can bold that part all you want. The fact is that the INFORMATION in the article, when TAKEN on FACE VALUE, indicates that the kids were the ones who told the debuties this, otherwise why isn't there a quote from a witness besides the kids?

I've already stated twice it's probably a bad shoot, but shouldn't you have something besides the statements of the "victims" before calling it premeditated murder?

c_yeager
July 29, 2005, 07:36 AM
I've already stated twice it's probably a bad shoot, but shouldn't you have something besides the statements of the "victims" before calling it premeditated murder?

Can you possibly show us a circumstance in which the throwing of eggs would constitute a legitimate use of lethal force?

Gray Peterson
July 29, 2005, 07:46 AM
On the other hand, there have been a couple of cases of little punks going around and shooting people with paintball guns, and taking videos of it.

Paintball guns look a lot like real guns, and paintball gun shots sound a lot like suppressed gun shots.

There was a case in Denver where a bunch of punk kids were running around shooting people with paintballs. One of the victims happened to have a real firearm and fired back thinking that he was being shot at. One of the kids got shot in the head from that return fire.

That's an obvious case of self defense.

Gray Peterson
July 29, 2005, 07:55 AM
These kids chose to have fun by messing with total strangers without any thought to the consequences.

Yep, had it happen to me too. I got pelted by milkshake on the side of the road by a bunch of high school juniors and seniors.

Both me and my boyfriend got hit by this.

Now, just imagine if it were lye or acid. Like it or not, people like the egg throwers are becoming more and more brazen. The overpass rock throwers and so on.

About the only reason why drive by paintballing has become a lot less popular is that they heard about what happened in Denver.

Gray Peterson
July 29, 2005, 07:59 AM
The kid was taken out by Darwin. Bravo. Maybe his death will teach a lesson to kids not to pull this kind of crap.

The same for the shooter. He's now going to get life in prison, and with any luck his stupidity will result in his genes not passing on to the next generation.

As you can tell I have very little faith in people now. Every generation seems to get STUPIDER.

only1asterisk
July 29, 2005, 08:12 AM
Mike,

To put it another way: Suppose the shooter was hit with an egg, managed to stop his car and (pulling his rifle from the gun rack in the truck) shot the morons that "egged" him on.

While the difference may be enough to drop the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter, the shoot was still wrong. If there was no immediate threat, any shooting done was retaliation. It doesn’t matter to me if he went home to fetch a gun, or shot with egg on his face (although the extra 25-life might matter to him).

Suppose there never was a driver, and the kids on the overpass shot each other? Maybe the person the hit with an egg wasn't the same person that came by later and shot. When all you have is a couple hundred word newspaper article that has a good chance of being 95% BS, it is still all you have. If you want to discuss it, you may have to assume it has some sort of veracity for purpose of discussion .


David

Janitor
July 29, 2005, 08:19 AM
"Can you possibly show us a circumstance in which the throwing of eggs would constitute a legitimate use of lethal force?"

I don't believe that anyone is arguing that lethal force was way beyond any reasonable reaction.

I think what some are trying to point out is that to call it "premeditated murder" based on only the one victims testimony (which is all we have given the story) may be a bit over the top. Why not murder 2, or manslaughter?

Serious question there. I'm not sure of all the differences. But I do agree that it's a bit much to assume that the kid who was shot was telling the truth about everything that happend and how it happened. In fact - he may even be telling the truth as he remembers it - while laying on a gurney after having just been shot in the stomach. Is that kids statement enough to say that this really was premeditated?

Depends on how you feel about that kid I suppose. Proof is simply evidence we've chosen to believe.

ezypikns
July 29, 2005, 08:51 AM
The shooter goes to jail. The kid's dead. Who won? No one. And we lose too, every time someone uses a gun irresponsibly.

MikeB
July 29, 2005, 08:57 AM
Can you possibly show us a circumstance in which the throwing of eggs would constitute a legitimate use of lethal force?

Never said it did. This will now be the third time, I'm going to say this is probably a bad shoot. However to call it premeditated murder based upon the statement of someone who was already breaking the law, without any corroborating evidence is a stretch. If in a fit of rage the driver turned around went back and shot the kids, that would be murder 2, manslaughter, something else. We have zero evidence this guy actually went home and got a firearm, then turned around and went back intent on murdering the assailants. That is what would be required for it to be premeditated murder.

Note also that if in fact the driver hit in the face with an egg is the same one who shot the kids, he was initially the victim of an assault by these delinquents. While that probably doesn't justify shooting them, we don't know what transpired between the shooter and kids after he "returned". Returing may only have been turning around, not actually going home to retrieve a firearm.

As we still don't even know who the guy is, we know zip except what was reported by the young criminals in question.

I'll repeat for the fourth time to head off yet another statement claiming I said something I didn't or am defending the shooters decision, from what we know it was a bad shoot. No proof yet however that this was in fact premeditated murder.

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 09:23 PM
You can bold that part all you want. The fact is that the INFORMATION in the article, when TAKEN on FACE VALUE, indicates that the kids were the ones who told the debuties this, otherwise why isn't there a quote from a witness besides the kids?It IMPLIES, it does not INDICATE.

To garner information from an implication requires an assumption.

Its' been fun, but no more parsing/logic lessons for you--at least not from me.

MikeB
July 29, 2005, 09:30 PM
Its' been fun, but no more parsing/logic lessons for you--at least not from me.

How very High Road of you.

Now could you please explain exactly what part of my argument you have such a problem with that you would attempt to insult me over it.

I've said it's very likely a bad shoot. I have said that we don't have enough information to declare this a case of premeditated murder. Which is it you have such a problem with? And why?

DonNikmare
July 29, 2005, 09:34 PM
Well, let's see...eggs, patatoes, snowballs, tomatoes, water bombs, yogurt, rocks,..... I would have been dead so many times :eek:

Kids are kids and kids do stupid stuff for fun. Even if their parents did everything right kids do stupid things when they are with other kids. Adults should be adults and know better! :fire:

I hope the idiot gets the maximum penalty possible. There's no excuse in killing a kid over an egg. :cuss:

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 10:17 PM
I have said that we don't have enough information to declare this a case of premeditated murder.1. All we have is the article.
2. The article says he left the scene and returned.
3. It says it twice.
4. One time it quotes the investigating officers as saying that.
5. The second time it quotes a witness as saying it.
6. If he left the scene and returned it is premeditated murder.
7. Therefore, based on the information in the article, the murder was premeditated.

NOW, you may disgree with the contents of the article, but given that the article is the SOLE source of hard evidence of the situation we're discussing, it seems unreasonable to give your speculation MORE weight than the SOLE source of evidence that we have.

FURTHERMORE, even if you disagree with the contents of the article, you can NOT disagree with the conclusion that according to the article the murder was premeditated. Because that statement is not dependent upon your opinions, it is only dependent upon the contents of the article, which, in this respect, are not ambiguous.

For the record, I have never in my life ATTEMPTED to insult anyone. Trust me. ;)

Kjervin
July 29, 2005, 10:35 PM
Actually, unless the "witness" followed the shooter home, there is no way for them to know what happened once the shooter left. The most they could know is that the person left and had a gun upon return. The shooter might have had the gun the first time.

Calling it premeditated murder suposes the shooter's intention was to kill. He may have gone back with the intention to scare them, but when they did not respond as he liked, he got angry and shot at them. (not premeditated).

I am sorry, but it is not correct to say that the facts lead solely to premeditated murder, even if he did go home and get a gun (which a witness who was at the shooting location would have no way of knowing anyway). In order to know that, you would have to know what happened between the time he left and returned, and you would have to know what happened from the time he returned until the shooting began. Neither of the facts are in evidence.

Kj

ps- sorry I forgot to throw in the accusation that something someone said was "not particularly High Road" of them, but I am not feeling particularly pompous today.

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 10:43 PM
He may...He may have done a lot of things. All we can go by is what the article said.it is not correct to say that the facts lead solely to premeditated murderAt the risk of being repetitive, we don't know the facts--all we know is what the article says.

The shooter might have had the gun the first time.WHERE he went, WHAT he did while he was gone and WHEN he got the gun is pretty irrelevant. The point is that he LEFT the scene (was gone for long enough that one witness thought he had gone home) and then RETURNED before shooting. Had he shot back immediately he could have claimed self-defense (a real stretch) or at least said it was a spur-of-the-moment reaction.

Leaving and returning is what makes it premeditated.

NineseveN
July 29, 2005, 10:45 PM
John, the "witness" was engaging in the crime that reportedly prompted the shooter to commit the act. Harldy an impartial observer. Sounds like a lot of assumption going on here. We may never know unless the guy is caught.

MikeB
July 29, 2005, 10:49 PM
1. All we have is the article.

Yes

2. The article says he left the scene and returned.
3. It says it twice.

The first quote is by "sheriff's deputies" without a name or direct quote said by anyone. The other quote said he went home retrieved a firearm and returned. That quote is from one of the criminals who admitted assaulting strangers.

4. One time it quotes the investigating officers as saying that.

Actually it says "Marion County, Ind., sheriff's deputies said that after the juveniles hit one motorist in the face, the man drove off before returning with a gun, shooting one 15-year-old boy in the leg and another 17-year-old boy in the stomach."

Those deputies may or may not be the investigating officers. What was that crack about assumptions again?

5. The second time it quotes a witness as saying it.

That witness is one of the shooters assailants according to the letter of the article.

6. If he left the scene and returned it is premeditated murder.

Depends on what leaving the scene entails. If leaving the scene is going a hundred yards while traveling 50 mph and then spinning around to confront an assailant, it may be stupid and certainly illegal, but you'd have a hard time proving premeditated murder in a court of law.

7. Therefore, based on the information in the article, the murder was premeditated.

How is that?

NOW, you may disagree with the contents of the article, but given that the article is the SOLE source of hard evidence of the situation we're discussing, it seems unreasonable to give your speculation MORE weight than the SOLE source of evidence that we have.

Really?

For the record, I have never in my life ATTEMPTED to insult anyone. Trust me.

I see, this statement was meant in the most friendly manner huh?

Its' been fun, but no more parsing/logic lessons for you--at least not from me.

NineseveN
July 29, 2005, 10:49 PM
Leaving and returning is what makes it premeditated.

Only if you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the shooter left and/or returned with the intention of committing muder. He may have pulled over down the road, hought about it for a bit, came back to yell at the kids and then they made aggressive movements towards him trying to punk him out with numbers. maybe they threw rocks at him or something...then it would not be premeditated, now would it? Not in any court I know of. Maybe he went to yell, and they pissed him off so bad, he snapped and shot one...we don't know, you're making assumptions with only one side of the story.

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 11:05 PM
If you discount the information provided in the article and base your arguments on speculation and assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like.

Or, if you start with a conclusion, and are willing to "work around" the information available, you can come up with a reasonable sounding argument to support your starting conclusion.

You guys THINK your arguments sound reasonable because you're looking at them from the inside. The problem is that if you discount the only source of information we have to work with, you can make ANY scenario plausible.

For example, using your assumptions (the witness accounts are unreliable) not only can you make the argument that the murder was not premeditated, you could also just as reasonably make the argument that there was no man at all, that the egging and the shooting were totally unrelated, that the shooting was accidental and that the story about the "man who left the scene and nobody else saw" was made up to cover the accident. After all, there is only the word of the unreliable witnesses that there was a man. Where do you stop? There isn't a good stopping place once you decide that you can pick the information you like and throw away the rest.

NineseveN
July 29, 2005, 11:09 PM
:neener:

MikeB
July 29, 2005, 11:16 PM
For example, using your assumptions (the witness accounts are unreliable)

Being that the only witness account was an assailant of the shooter. I think considering the "witness" reports as being less that fully reliable is prudent and not an assumption.

not only can you make the argument that the murder was not premeditated, you could also just as reasonably make the argument that there was no man at all, that the egging and the shooting were totally unrelated, that the shooting was accidental and that the story about the "man who left the scene and nobody else saw" was made up to cover the accident. After all, there is only the word of the unreliable witnesses that there was a man. Where do you stop? There isn't a good stopping place once you decide that you can pick the information you like and throw away the rest.

Nice rhetoric. The only argument we've made that you list is that a premeditated murder accusation is premature based on the article. As for the rest, stop putting words in other peopls mouths, or prove someone you are arguing with actually stated anything you quoted.

Kjervin
July 29, 2005, 11:26 PM
All I am saying is that all the necessary elements of premeditation are not there. Even stipulating that he came back, it does not mean he came back with the intent to murder. Or that he selected an individual to murder (ie. versus firing into a crowd which is generally not viewed as premeditated murder). We (and by we I mean myself and any who choose to agree) are not arguing specifically whether he left and came back, but rather that returning to the scene, while it might make you guilty of something, does not in and of itself make it premeditated murder, even if one thinks it should. Other elements are required.
Sound good? Good.
Kj

JohnKSa
July 29, 2005, 11:33 PM
Ok, so the witnesses are unreliable. How unreliable? Evidently just unreliable enough that you'd question whether or not the man actually left the scene or not, but not unreliable enough so that you'd question whether there even was a man. Right? Ok...As for the rest, stop putting words in other peopls mouths, or prove someone you are arguing with actually stated anything you quotedThis coming from a guy who's busy rearranging eye-witness stories to match his conclusions. :rolleyes:

Kjervin,

That's something of a stretch, IMO. Perhaps enough to raise a reasonable doubt, but it would certainly be an uphill argument.

helpwanted
July 29, 2005, 11:37 PM
Around here a pickup truck is synonymous with idiot. They've overtaken SUV drivers many times over as the idiots of the road. Just today I was cut off by another pickup driver weaving in and out of a construction zone.

ezypikns
July 30, 2005, 12:22 AM
is near bout dead.

NineseveN
July 30, 2005, 12:35 AM
Hehe, the one-armed man shot the boys, I swear. How do we even know there was a guy? It's an interesting point. These kids were engaging in vandalism and assault, by their admission, so their credibility is...yup, you guess it, ZERO.

Now, if/when the police find this evasive bandit, we'll know more and we can make some decent conclusions, until then, this is all just theorycraft.

c_yeager
July 30, 2005, 04:27 AM
The most they could know is that the person left and had a gun upon return.

That is enough to accont for premeditation right there. By Indiana law acting "in the heat of the moment" is the difference between murder and manslaughter, leaving the scene and returning is a deliberate action and that defense can no longer apply.

Calling it premeditated murder suposes the shooter's intention was to kill. He may have gone back with the intention to scare them, but when they did not respond as he liked, he got angry and shot at them. (not premeditated).

"scaring people" by firing a weapon at them, or even by brandishing, is a felony, if you kill someone in the course of commiting a felony that is first degree murder regardless of premeditation.

MikeB
July 30, 2005, 09:04 AM
This coming from a guy who's busy rearranging eye-witness stories to match his conclusions.

Prove it, or admit you're putting words in my mouth again.

It's a bit hard to rearrange ONE eyewitness account in a story. You've claimed I did, go ahead and prove it.

XLMiguel
July 30, 2005, 09:40 AM
Agreed, ezypikens, this is getting tedious.

Y'all are getting lathered up over an incomplete, poorly written acoount of an outbreak of stupidity.

Can we get back to somthing of substance or that matters?

JohnKSa
July 30, 2005, 03:28 PM
It's a bit hard to rearrange ONE eyewitness account in a story. You've claimed I did, go ahead and prove it.We have zero evidence this guy actually went home and got a firearm, then turned around and went back intent on murdering the assailants.He didn't have to go home, get a gun and come back and shoot usClearly "a bit hard" is not the same thing as impossible. :rolleyes:

MikeB
July 30, 2005, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by James Patterson EYEWITNESS
He didn't have to go home, get a gun and come back and shoot us


And you believe this guy actually knows someone he doesn't know the name of actually went home and got a gun before coming back?

That to me is the flag that says he is unreliable as an eyewitness. Never mind the fact that the person saying this actually assualted the unknown guy in question. He couldn't possibly have made this up to make himself look better or anything.

Nice try, but you haven't proven I rearranged anything. Now come up with some proof or get off my back.

JohnKSa
July 30, 2005, 03:34 PM
Chief, you just directly contradicted the only eye-witness quote in the story. The fact that YOU THINK he's unreliable doesn't change the fact that you contradicted him. I just posted the proof--but I don't teach reading comprehension.

Good-bye.

MikeB
July 30, 2005, 03:38 PM
I just posted the proof--but I don't teach reading comprehension.

Nice, insults again. A mod should really do something about this.

I have questioned the credibility of this eye-witness from the begining. Perhaps you missed that, and is the reason you can't seem to understand the argument.

JohnKSa
July 30, 2005, 03:39 PM
Good-bye

One entry found for good-bye.

1 : a concluding remark or gesture at parting -- often used interjectionally
2 : a taking of leave

ojibweindian
July 30, 2005, 03:45 PM
Just read the article, and the resultant posts.

Only a few things can really be said.

One, stupidity can be expensive, and lethal.

Two, social darwinisim at work again.

NineseveN
July 30, 2005, 04:45 PM
This is all I am going to say, don't start insuting me. The term, "witness" should be reserved for 'unrelated and uninvolved parties that observe an event'. Using witness to describe someone engaging in the criminal act that served as a catalyst for another is a bit too much.

This person was part of both the catalyst event and the resultant event, which semi-precludes him from being a witness. There is NO WAY he could have know for sure if the shooter went home. How would he know this? Did he see the guy go in his home? If he did, why doesn't he show the cops where the guy lives so they can arrest him or look up property records and announce the suspect's name. The statement from this so-called witness is presumptious at best. We cannot know if it is true or not. I can point out a number of stories where something happened and some phantom third-party was invented by someone already perpetrating a crime.

I dealt a lot with inner-city gans in my earlier days. When there was a skirmish and someone got shot, the victim normally would invent some phantom assailant as to not rat out another gang member or incrimiate themselve's in gang activity. This happens fairly often here, not sure about where some of you folks are or where this incident occurred.

The shooter could have had the gun in his car and simply drove away and came back, we don't know. Assuming that either you or this alleged witness could know is sheer folly, because the story eludes to the facts that:

They did not know the shooter because he was not named, and the police do not know who he is or where he lives. How can you know someone went home unless you saw them or know who they are and where they live? if they do, why isn't this guy in custody then?



If you feel the need to insult people because they do not presume to know what you presume to, perhaps this discussion is a bit too much for you.

P95Carry
July 30, 2005, 06:30 PM
Hmmmm - well, I really reckon this been there, done that, and some - with some less than pleasant exchanges.

I am trying to watch here for Preacherman who is away and have been NRA teaching all day so missed some of the ''fun''. I doubt frankly there is much more useful input possible - and speculation has already reached extremes in some respects.

Maybe we will know more in the future. For now - enough!

If you enjoyed reading about "Police: Driver Kills Boy Who Threw Egg At Vehicle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!