Graffiti painter killed by homeowner - news story


PDA






Nortonics
May 4, 2006, 01:59 PM
This is a horrible tragedy. Caught wind of this news story that happened yesterday locally here in the Minneapolis area at the local gun shop this morning. Don't get me wrong - I'm a firm believer in the right to carry and posses firearms for personal protection myself, but may it serve as a valuable reminder/lesson to us all that unless we feel a clear and present danger to ours or our families lives that firing upon a person for such an act is most certainly against the law. Obviously the shooting victim is the clear loser in this battle, but I'm certain that the homeowner/occupant that did the shooting had/has no clue what he's in for for the rest of his life, as well as when he inevitably meets his maker. Read on...

Two killed in Minneapolis, one for painting graffiti (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=124197)

Another violent day in Minneapolis.

The first murder took place in south Minneapolis, the second in the northern part of the city.

First the morning murder which is a story where a victim becomes the suspect and a misdemeanor leads to murder.

That's what police are saying happened just after ten this morning in South Minneapolis.

At around 10 a.m. two people were caught red handed spray painting graffiti on the front of a duplex in the 2000 block of east 34th street in south Minneapolis.

The painters were caught by a teen who was in the house and police say he apparently took it upon himself to stop the vandals.

"These two were spray painting the home on 34th street when a person from within the home came out with a gun and fired at least one shot," said Minneapolis Police Officer Ron Reier.
Reier said the shooter was a victim of vandals until he fired his gun.

Neighbors say they were shocked to come home to a crime scene four blocks wide.
"Surprised to see someone shoot someone for doing that," said a neighbor who didn't want to be identified.

The 19-year-old male who was shot was taken to HCMC by the other person who was allegedly spray painting the house. The man died a short time later.

When police came to the house looking for the shooter no one was there.

Just before 6 p.m., police arrested the shooter and identified him as a 17-year-old male.
He is being held at the Hennepin County Jail.

"I do not see or cannot envision any type of situation where spray painting, a misdemeanor crime, would justify the person coming out and using deadly force," Officer Reier said.

Police aren't saying why this house was the target of the graffiti or if the graffiti itself is gang related, but, neighborhood residents are concerned. Especially that area's City Councilman, Gary Schiff. "We are seeing gang activity and seeing gang graffiti," Schiff said.

He planned to meet with members of the community Wednesday night to answer any questions they had about the shooting.

Schiff wanted to be able to tell the residents about the need for a lockdown at South High School Wednesday afternoon. The lockdown happened when police surrounded the home and the area while looking for the shooter. They called for the lockdown because they could not ensure public safety in the area until they gave the all clear. Students at South HS were dismissed at the normal hour Wednesday and neighbors were cleared of the crime tape by late afternoon.

The second killing took place around 7 p.m. Minneapolis Police were dispatched to the 600 block of Thomas Avenue North after 911 calls about multiple gun shots being heard. When officers arrived they found the body of an adult male in the rear of home on the block. He had been shot several times. The unidentified victim was transported to North Memorial Medical Center where he died.

Preliminary information given to police indicates that possibly two shooters fled in a newer model, light colored, vehicle. This vehicle was fleeing northbound in the alley between Thomas and Sheridan Avenues North.

Anyone with any information regarding this murder is asked to call the Minneapolis Police Department's TIPS Line at 612-693-8477.


By Jana Shortal, KARE 11 News

If you enjoyed reading about "Graffiti painter killed by homeowner - news story" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SomeKid
May 4, 2006, 02:02 PM
I see no problem with the residents actions towards the tresspasser.

DesertEagle613
May 4, 2006, 02:04 PM
A lot of missing info here. My first thought was that the taggers and the shooter could be from rival gangs

Daniel T
May 4, 2006, 02:04 PM
Ah, of course. The moral punishment for vandalism is death, right?

:rolleyes:

Oleg Volk
May 4, 2006, 02:06 PM
My friend in that neighborhood says it was plain vandalism, interrupted. He hopes it would deter other vandals, but doesn't have much faith in them learning from the experience of others. That neighborshood has had a lot of vandalism, burglaries and arson.

Guntalk
May 4, 2006, 02:10 PM
If you see no problem with this, then you need a serious attitude adjustment.

If the inappropriateness of this reaction doesn't seem obvious to you, perhaps you would be more impressed with the concept of spending 20 years in jail because you shot someone spraying paint.

Review of Basic Rules:

1. Shoot only if in fear for your life.

2. It will cost you $50,000 to pull the trigger, if everything goes right. If it goes wrong, it may cost most of your life in prison.

(Me? It's not worth $50,000 to prevent spray painting, when that stuff can be removed for $20. It's a basic math problem.)

If one agrees with those to precepts, shooting someone who offers no threat (assuming that was the case in this incident) would be not only illegal, but clearly immoral.

Justin
May 4, 2006, 02:14 PM
I see no problem with the residents actions towards the tresspasser.

Then you really ought to brush up on your critical thinking skills. :scrutiny:

saltydog452
May 4, 2006, 02:30 PM
I spent a little over 2 grand for a new cedar fence. I imagine if I saw someone destroying that 2 grand fence, I'd react as though it wasn't 'just a misdomener'. Its $2,000 out of my pocket, and I'd feel just the same as if I were robbed.

salty.

SomeKid
May 4, 2006, 02:33 PM
To add on to my previous post, I see no problem morally.

Legally he is in for a serious raping. If I were on the jury, and the incident was:

Scumbag came onto another mans land, and began vandalizing the place, homeowner comes out and shoots the SOB (whether or not a threat was posed to the owner), homeowner is charged.

Under those circumstances, I would hold out as the lone vote for not-guilty, and either convince the others, or deadlock the thing. I see nothing wrong with such force. For those who ask if I would, only if threatened. Guntalk pretty much summed the reasons why.

Daniel, the answer to your question is yes.

Justin, my thinking is fine. I just have no heart at all for vermin. If you do, thats fine, it is a free country. Just don't let your bleeding heart make snide comments about anothers mental fortitude and prowess.

Sindawe
May 4, 2006, 02:38 PM
I just have no heart at all for vermin. Same here. If it is not your property, don't mess around with it. :fire:

Thefabulousfink
May 4, 2006, 02:42 PM
I am not "in the know", but this sounds like it could be gang-related to me.

All parties involved are under the age of 21 (the shooter is 17).

The two were "tagging" the shooters house.

In gang mentality, it would be an insult that would require the "tagged" party to respond or lose "respect".


And now you can see why most gang-bangers don't go to college, get high paying jobs, or grow old.

Like I said, I don't have all the info, but this could be a likely reason.

Guntalk
May 4, 2006, 02:43 PM
>>I imagine if I saw someone destroying that 2 grand fence, I'd react as though it wasn't 'just a misdomener'.<<



Who will you shoot if the wind blows it down?

ball3006
May 4, 2006, 02:45 PM
at night in Texas, he can legally be shot, you're protecting your property. You can't shoot them in the daylight though. For example, you have your 40,000 dollar custom Harley parked in your driveway and some perp spraypaints it.........what would you do? Call 911?.........chris3

Edited correction.....

Henry Bowman
May 4, 2006, 02:48 PM
There is undoubtedly a LOT of missing information here. You MUST assume the what is reported is less than correct or complete, plus it has a bias toward inflaming a story so as to sell newspapers.

I doubt that it was merely a summary execution for the crime of vandalism. It could have been spun as a "hate crime" or gang warfare (regardless of the facts) just as well. Instead, the reporter chose to spin it as "out of control, gun-wielding teenager shoots and kills a grafitti artist."

Remain skeptical.

c_yeager
May 4, 2006, 02:57 PM
I hate vandals with a passion. They are worse than thieves in my book, at least thieves have some kind of reason for doing what they do, even if it is a bad one. I would have NO PROBLEM if the shooter had beat the unholy hell out of the vandal while awaiting the police that he called before leaving the building.

This has every appearance of being a bad shoot in my opinion. There are a lot of missing facts though. It is quite possible that, when confronted, one of the vandals became violent and was shot in self defense. There dont appear to be any witnesses saying anything to the contrary as yet, so we will have to wait and see.

"I do not see or cannot envision any type of situation where spray painting, a misdemeanor crime, would justify the person coming out and using deadly force," Officer Reier said.


Well Officer Reier, it only took me 5 seconds to come up with such a situation, and I am sure that nearly everyone reading this could come up with one too.

hso
May 4, 2006, 03:06 PM
If evidence doesn't come out that the guys with the spray cans represented some sort of threat to the life of the guy with the gun this is a bad shoot. There is no way to justify the use of deadly force for this without a corresponding threat of deadly force having been made against they resident.

atblis
May 4, 2006, 03:09 PM
9 shot anybody?

RS3RS
May 4, 2006, 03:17 PM
Legally, not too smart to kill someone who is painting graffiti on your house. It SHOULD be legal though.

Rezin
May 4, 2006, 03:41 PM
Kids are stupid. When I was 15, I too spray painted a few things. I even got busted for it by the police once.


I should have been killed?

Run&Shoot
May 4, 2006, 03:41 PM
A few people post on this topic have stated that risk to life is the only justification for responding with deadly force. That may be their personal opnion, or the law in their state. But in many states deadly force can be used to protect against serious bodily harm, too. Posiibly even to protect property.

As others have said there is a lot of missing information with which to make a judgement at this point.

When I was 17 I ran vandals/thiefs from our beach property with a shotgun. They sailed their boat up to our beac and then proceeded to harvest bucket s and buckets of our oysters. I at first confronted them verbally and they laughed. I retrieved the Mossberg 500 and told them to leave. They laughed again. Now there were about 4 adult males and four females. One of them jeerily said, "You're not going to shoot us for taking oysters!"

I replied, "No, you're right, I won't shoot you. But I am counting to ten and then I will shred your pretty sail and then start putting holes in your hull." Eight adults spread across the beach vacated the premises in eaight seconds flat.

What option does a home owner have to deter vandalism and property crime. If you paint over the grafitti they will be back the next day, and the next. If they are so bold as to trespass freely and vandalize your property, how do you know they won't be breaking into your house next or threatening your kids? Do you think the police are even going to respond the same day to a grafitti call?!

While I am not sure that shooting the punks was the best idea in this current situation, I do understand the frustration of the home owners. With the undertanding that grafitti vandals won't stop just because you paint over their tags, what would you do to protect your property both from the tagging and possibly worse violations from increased boldness?

hso
May 4, 2006, 03:44 PM
Shoot pictures of them and submit to the police as evidence.

SlimeDog
May 4, 2006, 04:36 PM
Come on, is anyone here seriously advocating the use of deadly force against some kids spray-painting a wall? Hopefully, this is just your typical internet chutzpah. If it's not, I have to agree with Justin - this goes way beyond stupid and immoral.

I guess all I can say to the "murder-the-vandals" crowd is that if YOU actually do it and the dead kid's dad comes and kills you, nobody will be shedding any tears. At least the dad has an established moral leg to stand on... "You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..."

PS: I should also say that we don't know exactly what happened. It's entirely possible that this shooting was legitimate self-defense. Sadly, what is clear is that a number of folks here really do seem to think it's ok to kill somebody for damaging property.

Daniel T
May 4, 2006, 04:49 PM
SomeKid:

Daniel, the answer to your question is yes.

That's very Christian of you.

vynx
May 4, 2006, 05:00 PM
PEPPER SPRAY ! ! ! ! !

Heck even that is probably not "legal" in Cal.

grimjaw
May 4, 2006, 05:02 PM
Couldn't have called 911?

Couldn't have called the neighbors and organized a group to confront the vandals? (Had that happen to me once, and they were on me in five minutes from two directions)

Couldn't have videotaped it for police to review and prosecute later?

Couldn't have taken photos?

Could have had a gun concealed on person inside the doorway during all these events, so if vandal attempted violence, it could have been dealt with?

Sounds to me like the 17-year old didn't have much better sense or self control than the vandal. But I don't have all the facts, so hard to say.

jmm

Lou629
May 4, 2006, 05:04 PM
Depending on the individual laws of the state where one lives, you may indeed be legally ok in shooting to protect property. Whether or not you would want to is quite another matter altogether. This shooter could turn out to be some mental-health case for all we know. I am sure all of us know or have known at least one or two people who, because of some past action or mental/emotional instability, have no business around firearms. This shooter may be one of those. Some of the 'keyboard commandos' on this board would also seem to qualify, given some of the shoot first/think later bloodthirsty rhetoric that gets posted here.

saltydog452
May 4, 2006, 05:23 PM
Guntalk, I doubt if either of us wll change our opinions here, and I'm not going to try too hard to justify my opinion regarding vandalism. 'Vandalism' to me is simply wanton destruction of another person's property. 'Vandalism' sounds too mundane. It is what it is. But, if you will, consider this: I don't earn a lot of money, and for me to accumulate $2,000 in disposable income, I have to earn somewhere north of $20,000. Thats a lot of work, and I'd resent like heck for someone to take that away for me.

We can continue this via PMs if you like.

salty.

pete f
May 4, 2006, 06:50 PM
I used to live nearby.

The Tagging of a rival gang members house is a serious event, right up there with shagging his sister. The house was shown on the news and the Tags are not just gang names but total insults, as in ''We know where you live kid, next time it will be molotovs and gun fire". I am pretty sure a good defense attorney would be able to portray this as a direct threat to his person.


Now the mother was on TV claiming she had no idea he had a pistol, which would make him a juvie in posession, and although he is 17, so far I have heard no indications that he was going to be charged/tried as an adult.


When I was living in the area, there were shots fired over tagging several times. As far as I knew, no homeowners were charged. I had a brand new construction trailer tagged. The kid who did subsequently suffered some injuries from falling off his bike, several times.

rayra
May 4, 2006, 06:57 PM
Los Angeles County Code

Title 13 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE

Chapter 13.66 FIREARMS, BOWS AND ARROWS*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.66.010 Use of weapons permitted when.

This chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Part 1, does not prohibit the discharge of any rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or firearm of any kind, or the shooting of any arrow or other missile, when necessary so to do to protect life or property, or to destroy or kill any predatory or dangerous animal. (Ord. 7730 § 1, 1960: Ord. 7381 § 1 (part), 1958: Ord. 1769 Art. 3 § 302, 1929.)

Screw vandals. I'll attempt to detain. They make one move towards me, on my own property, I'm plugging them.

Manedwolf
May 4, 2006, 07:02 PM
This sort of thing is why I also have Pepperballs for a paintball gun.

Nonlethal, (don't aim for the face), stings, and envelops them in a cloud of ultrafine capsicum.

That solves two problems. One, it's not lethal force, and two, if THEY have a gun, they're going to have their eyes shut and be gasping, definitely not able to shoot at you...but if they're so dumb as to pull it out anyway, then you're justified in using lethal force at THAT point.

50 Freak
May 4, 2006, 07:59 PM
How many of you here have lived in a gang infested city?

I for one have. Imagine if you had some punk tagging your garage door every morning. You repaint it when you can, but as soon as that is done, within a few days it's got the same graffetti on it. Imagine this going on for months, if not years.

The local PD will not do anything. They have more important "things" to do at the local donut shop.

Now imagine if you try waiting and talk to this banger (or bangers) you risk your life as bangers have time and time again killed people trying to cover their "property" or tag.

Or one day, they will tire of you covering up their property and will do a drive by where your wife and 2 year old sleeps.

I don't advocate shooting of bangers, but I can see the fustration a homeowner can have.

There was a shooting in East Los Angeles about 8 years ago. Some guy (tired of constantly having his back yard fence tagged) confronted 2-3 boys to ask them to stop.

They argued and the punks produced screwdrivers in hand and he responded back with multiple lead "arguements". He eventually got off, but had to move cause the entire Hispanic community called him a kid killer and racist etc etc etc.

Stainless Chili
May 4, 2006, 07:59 PM
Officer Reier should not be giving his opinins to the press.

There are plenty of missing details here.

For instance, did a tagger react in a life-threatening manner to the resident?

Sindawe
May 4, 2006, 08:01 PM
This sort of thing is why I also have Pepperballs for a paintball gun Where are you obtaining the Pepperballs, and what marker are you using 'em in? I checked the Pepperballs web site and as of yet they do not sell to private citizens, nor recommend using the rounds a regular paintball marker ( don't know why not, what they sell looks like a rebadged Tippman98 ), nor painballs in their markers.

After getting some peripheral exposure to aerosolized capsicum last weekend I can see how disabling it can be.

SomeKid
May 4, 2006, 08:19 PM
Daniel,

As a matter of fact, it is. Exodus 22:2. If you need help understanding it, PM me.

Slime, you are distorting the Bible. If I am raping your daughter, and you kill me, my Dad has no moral/biblical reason to claim 'eye for an eye', and come for you.

BigO01
May 4, 2006, 08:19 PM
Now the original post doesn't quite fit this but I am with 50Freak on this .

How many of you have lived with something that is ilegal and out in the open and the local police did nothing about it ?

When I was a kid we had a drug/cat house across the street they were so brazen and open it wasn't funny , The mother of 3 girls was running the the whole show and was known to yell prices out the screen door/window in nice weather .

My parents called the cops what must have been close to a hundred times because they would have parties in the front yard actually shooting up and smoking dope in the open ,right before the cops would show up they would all leave and close up the house and turn out the lights so it would look like all was well .

They finally took a shot at our house and thank god it hit a evergreen tree in the yard .

My folks called the FBI when that happened , within 6 months they and over 3/4 of the police department were gone apparently the cops were realy "on the take" as they say .

This was in what was a pretty good neighborhood but it was in the mid 70's and I think they were just starting things like section 8 housing as it was a rental and various kinds of scum moved in and out for a couple of years , none anywhere near as bad as the first group though .

A law abiding citizen can be pushed way over the limit and be forced to take action , unfortunately all you see on the news is the action of the otherwise lawabiding citizen that has been tormented perhaps for years with no help so ever from the local Police .

1911JMB
May 4, 2006, 08:23 PM
"How many of you have lived with something that is ilegal and out in the open and the local police did nothing about it?"

I won't get specific, but a similar thing happened to a friend of mine who had a drug dealing neighbor. Anytime that sort of thing happens, I'd say call the Feds or the State Police. Bribes don't reach those guys.

Biker
May 4, 2006, 08:29 PM
Sometimes, things just have to be dealt with on a local and personal level. End of story.
Biker

Jamie C.
May 4, 2006, 08:50 PM
I'd say call the Feds or the State Police. Bribes don't reach those guys.

Really? Then why'd the TN State Trooper's office just get a complete overhaul recently? Seems bribes, political favors, and various other forms of misconduct were rampant. And the TBI has had it's share of "internal investigations" in the last few years too.

Fact is, no organization is immune from corruption. Especially not when they're the ones either making or enforcing the "rules".

And as for the taggers... if it was legal, I'd have shot 'em. If it wasn't, and I had a reoccurring problem with 'em... well, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat, and leave it at that. ;)

One way or the other, they wouldn't be allowed to continue their destructive ways, with or without assistance from the local L.E.O.s.


J.C.

Standing Wolf
May 4, 2006, 08:59 PM
It's not a real sport if it can't kill you.

shootinstudent
May 4, 2006, 09:01 PM
I sympathize with being driven nuts by property destruction, but some dollar amounts are just plain not worth killing people over. If it were a threat to your ability to provide food and shelter for you and your family, that would be one thing, but damage to a fence/garage door/siding?

If some crazy teens are driving recklessly and hit your car, causing 5000 in damage, do you have a right to get out and shoot them on site?

I sure hope most people wouldn't shoot another human being for petty vandalism. It's wrong, but it's not a death penalty offense for a reason.

Double Naught Spy
May 4, 2006, 09:13 PM
I believe that in such matters, the default consideration is the law. Shooting a person illegally is stupid

Whether or not you should shoot somebody for painting your house with graffiti is a moral and personal issue if you have the legal right to do it.

I don't think much of the morals of others. Those are their morals just like I don't hold the same religious beliefs of many others. I am doing some horrible things based on Jewish, Catholic, and Muslim faiths, but those are not my faiths.

People get all uppity about when you should or should not use lethal force, regardless of the law. I have to laugh at many of the "conservative" gun owners who take the high and mighty stand of keeping guns as per the Constitution and historical precedent, back from a time in the country when you could shoot a person, legally, for stealing a horse from you when that person posed no physical risk to you. In Texas, we have kept those laws. For people to speak of being so conservative, by historic precedent, I see them as flaming liberals.

I also see the view of the "life is precious" argument to be backwards. Why is it so much on the shoulders of the shooter to worry about the life of the person doing him wrong. Apparently life isn't that darned precious to the person committing the crime, painting someone else's house, stealing their horse, or stealing chicken poults in San Antonio (no arrest as the shooting wasn't criminal even though the teenager was shot in the back while fleeing with poults...because age, orientation of impact, and direction of travel do not determine the shooting to be inappropriate when the justification is stopping a crime on one's property and there is supporting evidence the crime was being committed as claimed) that said offenders are more than happy to risk their lives to commit such stupid acts. It is the offender that made the choice to risk his/her life in a stupid act, not the homeowner.

Jamie C.
May 4, 2006, 09:27 PM
I'm in complete agreement with you, Spy.... but then I hold the unpopular (apparently), and "un-PC" belief that some people just need killing. ;)

Also, there's the fact that "What's right ain't always legal, and what's legal ain't always right". :rolleyes:


J.C.

Daniel T
May 4, 2006, 10:17 PM
DNS, this would have been a bad shoot in Texas too bud, with it occurring at 10AM and all. There could be more to what happened, but some people here are far too eager to roll around in blood. You all ought be be ashamed of the flimsy justifications you're coming up with for murder.

...

SomeKid:

Justify it however you want, but if you think that getting your house spray-painted is in any way equivalent to having your livelyhood and sustenance stolen, as Exodus 22 is referring to, I think you are going to be sorely disappointed at some point in the future.

...

The correct way to have handled this is what pete f alluded to at the end of his post.

SomeKid
May 4, 2006, 11:02 PM
Daniel,

Exodus 22:2 does not allude to anything. It is quite clear. If a dirtbag is breaking in (tresspassing), and you kill him, it is ok. Period. No alluding at all. It is very clear.

AJAX22
May 4, 2006, 11:18 PM
Major violence in neighborhoods starts with disrespecting other peoples property. If no one steps up and confronts the perpetrators they get bolder.

That being said Rubber bullets are a cheep alternative to legal fees, first two shots can be rubbers, if that doesn't deter them, you can always have the next round be buckshot.

as far as peperballs go, I have some myself, I went to the scene of a riot the next morning and picked up the unbroken ones. something like one in 10 or 20 doesn't break.

I would recomed against the peper spray, at least in california. If you use it when you are not in immediate life threatening danger you can get charged with a nasty felony.

We can't pass judgement without knowing all the facts, what if he looked like he went for a gun?

pete f
May 5, 2006, 01:53 AM
I have talked to police involved in the situation.


Let us just say the news only gets about 20% right.


This was my former neighborhood, it has a long history of gang violence.
Although the juvie got arrested for the shooting,

This is being related to a duel. Tagging the kids house was like calling him a chicken or slapping his face with a glove in another era.

The tagging was very inflamatory and was between, it appears, black and hispanic gnag members. This is GANG VIOLENCE, not a homeowner protecting his property.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/409638.html not a lot more but enough to show some of the tags behind the pedestrian.

Although not confirmed in print, I was told all three participants have lengthy sheets.

Doggieman
May 5, 2006, 05:37 AM
NOT The High Road.

-Justin

Baba Louie
May 5, 2006, 07:23 AM
I can see Sarah Brady's group planning the next money pledge drive for MN...

"Another tragic death of a sweet and innocent child at the hands of a... a... a GUN!!!"

Problem being, even we here at THR over-react/knee-jerk react (whichever), when we read of such things... You gotta put the proper spin on it.

Sing along with me now, "Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?"...

Spin or context. While it MIGHT happen in my neighborhood, I PROBABLY wouldn't react as did the shooter... as I've got other things to live (and die) for. In his case, just another day in the 'hood. Life can be tough in some areas of our nation.

Even tagging can get ya killed.

There's a lesson or two to be learned here, not that anyone involved will.

But we can. And should.

(Note to self... Should I ever go tagging a rival's house, bring guns and wear kevlar)

repsychler
May 5, 2006, 08:25 AM
As it appears to be gang related, I'm not going to shed a tear for the dead guy or the kid that's in jail. It'd be nice of they could pin felony murder on the 3rd guy. One banger in the morgue and two in jail, everyone wins.

stevelyn
May 5, 2006, 09:27 AM
From the information given, the shooter is in legal dire straits. However, I don't have any sympathy for the puke that died.......consider it the Darwin factor. People doing stupid things shouldn't survive to procreate.
If this is a case of rival bangers, then my math will agree with repsychler's.

merk
May 5, 2006, 11:13 AM
I personally would not have fired.

However, the rules for my castle arent the same as the rules for another mans castle.

Manedwolf
May 5, 2006, 01:34 PM
Where are you obtaining the Pepperballs, and what marker are you using 'em in? I checked the Pepperballs web site and as of yet they do not sell to private citizens, nor recommend using the rounds a regular paintball marker ( don't know why not, what they sell looks like a rebadged Tippman98 ), nor painballs in their markers.

There's a bunch of police-supply and other places on the web that sell them, just like how you can get Winchester Rangers from some suppliers. :D

The one I'd bought these from went away, though, so I need to find another.

And of course they say only use them in their launcher...they wanna sell you a $1000 rebadged marker.

I wouldn't use them in a $24 Wal-Mart special, of course, they'd likely break and ruin your day. But any decent marker...I use an Armotech Zeus pistol, which also has an underbarrel picatinny rail for a laser or light. (I put an airsoft laser on it...it doesn't recoil hard enough to need a "real" one.) Semiauto, ten rounds. It can be put in a thigh holster, good for post-disaster walkaround in case of non-life-threatening trouble.

You can also get Pepperball training balls with scented powder in them, good to test your marker with to see if it functions. And just NEVER use actual paintballs in the marker, then pepperballs...keep it dedicated to those.

Joe7cri
May 5, 2006, 01:45 PM
We don't know what happened. For all we know the kid came out to confront the vandals, they started to charge him, he shot, the one who survived changed his story so he wouldn't go to jail. At least that would be my story:evil:

bosshoff
May 5, 2006, 03:40 PM
My first official decree after being placed on the throne will be that "All persons being caught tagging/vandalizing/spray painting grafitti, as a first offense, will have the thumb of their dominant hand snipped off with a Felco garden pruner.":what:
Until I take over, snap a photo, and call 911.;)

JohnKSa
May 5, 2006, 09:17 PM
Some general advice.

1. Never bet your life on someone else's sanity. People are REMARKABLY bad at being able to determine when someone is going to snap.

2. Never stay around or be a person who so much as hints that shooting someone over a relatively minor issue (e.g. graffiti) is a good idea.

Jamie C.
May 5, 2006, 09:55 PM
Try to keep in mind that it's all relative, too...

What's minor to you may be major to someone else... especially under the right...or wrong... circumstances.

As for judging MY sanity... go ahead. But I should tell you I already have paperwork claiming I'm sane. :neener:
( Passed my psych exam for the S.O.'s office with no trouble, and also was re-evaluated when I was diagnosed with migraines, here a few years ago. No problems then either. )

And yes, I'd still shoot a gang banger for tagging my house, if need be.

Fortunately, for both them and me, there aren't too many to be found, here in the hills of Tennessee....
Only the occasional gang-banging deer, opossum, or raccoon.... And maybe a coyote, every now and then.


J.C.

FPrice
May 5, 2006, 10:39 PM
I'd say call the Feds or the State Police. Bribes don't reach those guys.

Read Howie Carr's book The Brothers Bulger and then try saying that.

IndianaDon
May 5, 2006, 11:09 PM
We used to live in Minneapolis---my wife is a scientist and joined the university there for a spell before moving on to a better situation. We were in the then up & coming Northeast part of town; formerly working class, shifting to trendy artsy-university types. Shortly after we moved in, we noticed a freshly painted “Aryan Nation” insignia stenciled on the cement wall that held back the berm of the neighbor’s yard just across the alley from our driveway. It was located so that we would see it driving to and looking from our garage. I am white; my wife is Asian, then the only non-white living in the immediate area. I asked the neighbors about it, bein’ their property and all, and they said they didn’t want to get involved---they chose to leave the calling card where it was. I went out with some deck paint so we wouldn’t have to look at it. “You are just asking for trouble,” my pacifist neighbor told me. Not long afterwards we saw on the news that a Korean church several blocks to the north was vandalized and swastikas were spray painted on and in it. Police concluded it was the work of the “Aryan Nation.” No one was ever caught…

MechAg94
May 6, 2006, 01:08 AM
I guess I grew up out in the country. To vandalize my parents house, those guys would have had to come 100 yards down the drive way. That to me is a bit more than just petty graffiti. These guys weren't just painting on a fence, they were painting threats right on their house. That is serious vandalism and very threatening behavior to me. The fact that this was gang business only demonstrates the character of the people involved, it doesn't change the situation a great deal.

Also, they were spray painting written threats on the house according to some on here. No telling what threats or moves were made in person before shots were fired either.

gitarmac
May 6, 2006, 01:17 AM
"Come on, is anyone here seriously advocating the use of deadly force against some kids spray-painting a wall?"

THey weren't kids they were 19 year old gangbangers. No big loss I say. Not saying I would do it but kudos for anyone that does.

Socrates
May 6, 2006, 01:24 AM
Perfect result. :neener: Two less gang bangers. First the dead tagger, second the guy that shot him isn't going to have the means to fight it, and he's going to jail, for a long time. Actually three, because, if the cops do their job, they will have the third guy as an accessory, if even for a brief time.

S

Lupinus
May 6, 2006, 01:28 AM
would have to depend on what the ywere vandalizing.

If they were spray painting my tree of course not.

If they were spray painting my brand new car that is now going to need a paint job costing hundreds of dollars or a custom motercycle with a paint job that literaly can't be replaced cause it would be impossible to do exactly the same over agian then they just might get a wave from Mr. Winchester.

A few dollars of damage is one thing, serious damage is quite another.

pete f
May 6, 2006, 01:33 AM
Actually third guy who was doing a felony, involved in an action that led to the death of a participant, can be charged first degree murder in MN. Possibility of triple dinger. dead perp, shooter, and felonious accomplice.

Jim March
May 6, 2006, 01:43 AM
There are various possible messages behind a tag.

One is: "I'm a dumb punk kid into vandalism."

Another is a bit more serious: "We're a gang selling drugs out of your apartment building. We own your home, your hall, your driveway and we own YOU if you even hint at getting in our way...and by the way, here's the drugs we're selling by name, AND we're brewing toxic meth in your basement in a building where kids live and we're probably incompetent and gonna blow the whole place up."

I've seen that sort of tag, in my building. I've smelled the lab in my basement. I didn't shoot them. But I did use a can of black spray paint to draw a skull'n'crossbones all over their biggest "drugs for sale here" tag at 2:00am with a snubbie in my front right pocket. (And yeah, they split, they figured somebody was ready to stand up to them and they were right. The police reaction to the "countertag" was to laugh out loud.)

If the "taggers" had seen me there might have been a shootout, and in Richmond Calif it would have been described as "evil gun owner shoots taggers for thrills".

I trust people around here might see it differently.

That's not necessarily saying the 17 year old in this story was in the right. He probably wasn't.

Just don't take the media reports at face value because every once in a while, what they call "taggers" is something else entirely.

rock jock
May 6, 2006, 02:39 AM
Criminal activity flourishes where it is not confronted immediately and aggresively.

Malone LaVeigh
May 6, 2006, 02:55 AM
Some people around here make me think that a little gun control might not be a bad thing. I'm not sure anyone who advocates shooting someone for vandalism ought to be allowed to have guns.

And if that crosses my mind, think for a second why John Q Citizen might be apt to support gun control.

IOW, if you have stupid ideas, please don't go braying them on internet forums.

zahc
May 6, 2006, 03:06 AM
If people were very likely to get shot for spraypainting houses, most likely few houses would get spraypainted.

An armed society is a polite society. I don't sympathize with thiefs and vandals.

Still dumb shoot in the real world.

Beachmaster
May 6, 2006, 08:50 AM
"Come on, is anyone here seriously advocating the use of deadly force against some kids spray-painting a wall?"

I am!

Taggers are basically low level terrorists. They cause more harm to a community than a thief or even a murderer.

Their graffiti causes neighborhoods to fall into despair, and brands an area as worthless. Graffiti send the message to the community that its now a slum, run by criminals.

Read all the posts in just this thread on graffiti, and you will see examples of people who just gave up trying to cover the graffiti up, or just were scared to cover it up. One should not feel scared in their home, or community. Terrorists want you scared, and thats what these so called "vandals" want. They want you too scared to call the police. and when a community is covered in graffiti, the police belive (wrongly) that the community just doesn't care about itself, so why should they. Now the area is under control of criminals.

Graffiti in an area hurts everybody, not just the people behind the wall its painted on. It drives housing prices in the area down, causes good citizens to move out of a community, and drives away businesses from an area.

Left unchecked, graffiti alone can take a good neighborhood and turn it into a slum.

oldfart
May 6, 2006, 09:53 AM
I live in a neighborhood that gets a lot of grafitti and it certainly does lower the value of property.
To give a slightly different view of the subject, let me tell about an incident that happened here one morning.
I heard a noise on my back porch and picked up a pistol to go investigate since we had been the victims of several petty thefts over the previous months. As expected, a 'homeless' man was going through some boxes to find bottles and cans to sell for the refund money (a nickle each here in Oregon.) I opend the door and he didn't even look up until he heard me cock the hammer. He then just asked, "Are you willing to shoot someone for a few bottles?"
I replied, "Are you willing to die for them?"
He left, emptyhanded. Would I have shot him? I don't know, but he didn't either. Since then we've not had anything stolen from our yard, porch or car. The word must have gotten around.

Jamie C.
May 6, 2006, 11:11 AM
...if you have stupid ideas, please don't go braying them on internet forums.

You mean, ideas like "Let the criminals do whatever they want... destroy property, deal drugs, commit assault, murder, etc. Just close your eyes and pretend they aren't there, and maybe they'll go away and not bother/maim/kill you"?

Stupid ideas like that? If so, I agree people should keep that crap to themselves.


J.C.

P.S. "John Q. Citizen" is a mindless sheep, who thinks somebody else is supposed to take care of him, and is convinced that the police will save him from harm, and that the politician really do know best.

This is not somebody I want to be, or to look to for advice on how to handle "life's little difficulties", if you know what I mean.

J.

Vermont Guy
May 6, 2006, 11:54 AM
It is the effect of graffiti on the neighborhood which Beachmaster described so well that elevates the seriousness of the act beyond the simple defacing of property.

MechAg94
May 6, 2006, 12:00 PM
You mean, ideas like "Let the criminals do whatever they want... destroy property, deal drugs, commit assault, murder, etc. Just close your eyes and pretend they aren't there, and maybe they'll go away and not bother/maim/kill you"?

Stupid ideas like that? If so, I agree people should keep that crap to themselves.


J.C.

+1

Mannlicher
May 6, 2006, 06:20 PM
the graffiti 'taggers' should be fair game. They have zero consideration for the rights and property of others. That one got himself killed should not come as a surprise.

JohnKSa
May 6, 2006, 11:10 PM
You mean, ideas like "Let the criminals do whatever they want... destroy property, deal drugs, commit assault, murder, etc. Just close your eyes and pretend they aren't there, and maybe they'll go away and not bother/maim/kill you"?

Stupid ideas like that? If so, I agree people should keep that crap to themselves.I hope that it's glaringly obvious to most people that there is an INCREDIBLE range of possible responses between "Let the criminals do whatever they want..." and shooting any criminal on sight.

ReadyontheRight
May 6, 2006, 11:39 PM
What response SHOULD a person expect when you decide to go and spray-paint another person's property?

We're not talking a bridge or government building. We're talking the side of a person's home.

Shooting is certainly not the answer...but what IS the answer?

This Harvard-Educated Native American decides that it is perfectly OK to go up and "tag" private property because of some "dissing" he got. Seems to me that he was escalating a situation that was going to turn out bad for someone anyway.

A sadly harsh lesson in civility.

O.F.Fascist
May 7, 2006, 12:42 AM
While I dont think I would shoot someone for merely vandelizing something, however I would definately confront them, and if in that confrontation I felt threatened I would take appropriate actions. I would probably feel alot more threatened if it was my house they were vandelizing.

Were I on that guys jury would I not convict him.

Daniel T
May 7, 2006, 12:53 AM
I hope that it's glaringly obvious to most people that there is an INCREDIBLE range of possible responses between "Let the criminals do whatever they want..." and shooting any criminal on sight.

I would have hoped that too, but it seems to be beyond the mental grasp of a good portion of people here.

SlimeDog
May 7, 2006, 03:48 AM
SomeKid wrote:

Slime, you are distorting the Bible. If I am raping your daughter, and you kill me, my Dad has no moral/biblical reason to claim 'eye for an eye', and come for you.

Mercy! Why do I take the bait? How did we get from damaging property to rape? SomeKid, you spinmeister, you're distorting reality. What are you? A liberal arts major at some Ivy League school?

(Ok, that Ivy League thing was pretty harsh - I'll take it back)

SomeKid
May 7, 2006, 04:01 AM
Actually, its Nursing, but on to the issue.

I guess all I can say to the "murder-the-vandals" crowd is that if YOU actually do it and the dead kid's dad comes and kills you, nobody will be shedding any tears. At least the dad has an established moral leg to stand on... "You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..."

Those are your exact words, from post #22. (Bold mine.)

The point I was making? The Bible was referring to the way to punish a criminal. If I am doing a criminal act, and am killed in the process thereof, there is no Biblical basis for anyone trying to get payback for my death.

When you read the Bible, dump your pre-concieved notions of what you want it to say. Read it, and read what it says. (Interestingly, if we could get lawmakers and jurists to read the Constitution the way I advocate reading the Bible, we would not have any of these cursed restrictions on our rights. Maybe reading a skill, beyond most government agents ability?)

As an aside before we get this thread locked, keep in mind, the mods don't like religion being discussed. If you still fail to understand the Bible; PM me, and I will help you as I can.

PlayboyPenguin
May 7, 2006, 04:18 AM
After reading the replies of a few people on this board that saw no problem ending the life of a person for a misdemeanor crime and the ones that think it would be okay to shoot a person you catch running off with your car stereo I see why the anti-gunnies are winning. it makes it real easy to believe that some people should not be trusted with anything deadlier than a pointy stick. :(

DevLcL
May 7, 2006, 04:21 AM
So every 17 year old 'tagger' is a 'gang related'?

Then I guess every gun owner is a 50 year old hill billy with only 2 teeth left.

Wether it matters to you or not, I've lost a little respect for some of you folks.

-Dev

SlimeDog
May 7, 2006, 04:22 AM
SomeKid wrote:

I will help you as I can

Ah!!! What was I thinking? KF fodder... signing off...

Jim March
May 7, 2006, 04:48 AM
Quoting:

"So every 17 year old 'tagger' is a 'gang related'?"

No, some are just stupid kids and the tags aren't threats of violence. It's usually possible to sort out from the tags themselves what is going on.

Where they constitute threats (which includes anything with a gang symbol in it), my experience is that a counter-threat sprayed down can work. In my case, the jolly roger in black paint.

Painting over the tags in white or the normal wall color sends a signal of "I'm a nice little law abiding sheeple who doesn't like your nasty tag". Flying the skull'n'crossbones in black over their tags says "I live here, I'm fed up and I'm armed". It also drives away drug customers as it's the international symbol for poison.

cracked butt
May 7, 2006, 10:05 AM
A young artist with a big future shot by gun wielding maniac while carrying out his 1st amendment right to paint his voice for others to see?

A terrible loss. Terrible.

Sindawe
May 7, 2006, 12:27 PM
Shooting is certainly not the answer...but what IS the answer? How about horsewhipped and a couple of days in the stocks in the parking lot of the local mall? Or maybe inside, harder to ignore there.

Malone LaVeigh
May 7, 2006, 04:53 PM
After reading the replies of a few people on this board that saw no problem ending the life of a person for a misdemeanor crime and the ones that think it would be okay to shoot a person you catch running off with your car stereo I see why the anti-gunnies are winning. it makes it real easy to believe that some people should not be trusted with anything deadlier than a pointy stick.
Hey, pointy sticks are deadly weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if good ol' "sheeple" John Q (a.k.a. the voting majority) would limit us to crayons for writing. With friends like this, who needs an enema?

TxCajun
May 7, 2006, 06:27 PM
Advocating or condoning the shooting of a vandal gives ALL gun owners a black eye. As a gun owner that would like to keep his guns, don't do me any favors. Justifying such a murder via the Bible is both blasphemous and sick. Some people give Christians a bad name.

Sindawe
May 7, 2006, 06:59 PM
... but it seems to be beyond the mental grasp of a good portion of people here. I surrender to the logic of your argument and the eloquence of your diction. :rolleyes:

rallyhound
May 7, 2006, 09:53 PM
the Minnespolis startribune reported last week that the slain tagger was a current Harvard student on leave from school who grew up on Minnesotas Leech lake indian reservation and attended a prestigious east coast boarding school.
Seems to me that there may be a little more to the story.
He dead man was 24 years old

Daniel T
May 7, 2006, 11:03 PM
I surrender to the logic of your argument and the eloquence of your diction.

I had thought you smarter, and better, than that. I appear to have been wrong. Maybe you can explain to me how it is moral to murder someone for a misdemeanor.

Perhaps you'd like to quote the Old Testament too?

You know, right now I almost feel ashamed to be part of this community. You people certainly aren't doing anything to disprove the "bloodthirsty maniacs" label that antis try to pin on us. Of course, some of you make it all too easy.

YellowLab
May 8, 2006, 12:12 AM
The Nanny state will not allow for a citizen to protect his property. Call 911? For what? The cops will put a $ value on your incident and tell you to file a report and clean it up.... at your expense.

The castle doctrine should be that. You PROPERTY is yours. Damage to it is damage to you. If Joe Dirtbag or Jimmy Dirtbag Yuppy wants to tag for grins and giggles then the homeowner should have the right to defend his property.... be it with a bat, OC, or with Mr. Smith & Wesson.

Why should the property owner have to live in fear because the Nanny state is allowing the dregs of the gene pool to survive?

How many inmates are serving time for vandalism? Maybe if he vandalized the sheriffs or judges property.. but Mr. and Mrs. Average Citizen is up the creek. Get that whitewash out and clean it up.

TxCajun
May 8, 2006, 07:35 PM
The Nanny state will not allow for a citizen to protect his property. Call 911? For what? The cops will put a $ value on your incident and tell you to file a report and clean it up.... at your expense.

You are probably right... But how could you conceivably equate your relatively minor inconvenience and expense with the loss of a human life. Congratulations! You have lowered your moral standards, and your assessment of the value of human life, to that of a gang banger/thug. And, in the bargain, you may as well have written the antis a big, fat check.

Yes vandalism is a crime and the tagger should be punished. Somehow I just don't think the death penalty should apply here. Geez... I hope that doesn't make me a liberal. :uhoh:

PlayboyPenguin
May 8, 2006, 11:28 PM
Yes vandalism is a crime and the tagger should be punished. Somehow I just don't think the death penalty should apply here. Geez... I hope that doesn't make me a liberal.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. What it does do is make you human and level headed..

bravo2zero
May 9, 2006, 12:11 AM
I would have gotten even. I would have found out where they lived and put styrene in their vehicle gas tank, vaseline on their windshield wipers, and an egg down the defroster.:evil:

IndianaDon
May 9, 2006, 12:03 PM
Gang gaffiti is not mere vandalism, it is a challenge to rival gang members, or (in our case) a statement of hatred---the recipient is being put on notice that they are unwelcome. It is also meant to imply that harsher measures will be taken if the target doesn’t “get the message” and move out of the area---just like when the KKK burned crosses on people’s lawns.

Biker
May 9, 2006, 12:05 PM
Now that's an astute take, IndianaDon. On the money...:)

Biker

ApexinM3
May 9, 2006, 12:40 PM
It seems to me that most responces here are based on assumptions. None of us were there, we don't know the facts (other than the local paper reporting t, and who knows what kind of slant that has), and therfore cannot come to any logical conclusiions. We don't know if this is gang-related (though on the face of it, it sure seems that way), or if it was random, or just some stupid kids out having a good ol' time painting the town (pun intended:p ). The shooter in question was 17...why did he have access to a firearm? Who's was it? Did he know the perps? Was this gang related & if so, what was the purpose of the vandalism?

If placed in the same situation (based on the way it has been reported), it is unlikely I would shoot unless prevoked, and probably would have called the cops prior to going out there to ward off further damage with the Roscoe in hand. Sure, I'd be pretty PO'd, but then again the situation didn't seem to warrant lethal force-unless there was other weapons involved that the paper has conveniently left out.

Long and short of it; I believe one has every right to protect ones property, by force (preferably not lethal but if the situation escelates...) if needed; but on the face of it, this seems excessive. I will reserve my opinions until after all the facts have been presented. IMHO...

Malone LaVeigh
May 9, 2006, 12:49 PM
IF the shooter can make a case to the jury that a reasonable person would have been in fear for his life, I have no problem with the action he took, especially if he had unsuccessfully tried to get help from the authorities in the past.

However, the statements being made here were advocating shooting someone for simple vandalism, and they do certainly make us look like a bunch of bloodthirsty savages. We need a word for the opposite of "bliss ninny" around here. How about "rage ninny?"

Justin
May 9, 2006, 01:19 PM
I can probably count on one hand the number times that I've agreed with Malone LaVeigh. But if you want to know why this thread is closed, his response sums it up nicely.

If you enjoyed reading about "Graffiti painter killed by homeowner - news story" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!