Columbus Ohio area man shoots trespassing teen


PDA






evan price
August 24, 2006, 02:05 AM
For all those folks out there who like to brag about shooting first and asking questions later::what:

This house has a reputation in the area for being "haunted" and kids have been doing ghost runs out there forever.

(As quoted on the OHIO CCW Forums web site by another member, DWCOL: ) Now if he can just convince his cellmate that his rectum is also haunted, he might be fine. :eek:

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9721499/detail.html

Police: Homeowner Shoots Teen After Apparent Prank
Girl, 17, In Critical Condition

POSTED: 11:44 pm EDT August 22, 2006
UPDATED: 6:48 pm EDT August 23, 2006



WORTHINGTON, Ohio -- A 17-year-old girl was in critical condition on Wednesday morning after a homeowner allegedly shot her during an apparent prank.

Rachel Barezinsky is at The Ohio State University Medical Center, NBC 4's David Wayne reported.

The shooting took place shortly after 10 p.m. outside a home at Milton and Lincoln avenues, police said.

Barezinsky, 17, was among a group of five girls who allegedly went to a cemetery for a late-night thrill and then ran across the street to what has been described as a haunted house, according to police.

"This house is in a very woodsy area. The kids started going for a thrill hunt. They go down to the cemetery and the other aspect is to sort of run over to the house," said Worthington police Lt. Doug Francis. "They made a couple steps, they got in the yard and one of the girls that stayed behind honked the horn. When that occurred, that startled the girls and the girls ran back to the car."

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

Barezinsky was struck in the shoulder and head with rounds fired from a small-caliber handgun, Wayne reported.

The five teens then ran to their car and drove away before they flagged down an officer on High Street.

"The suspect, who we've charged, appears as if he was almost waiting or he was aware that this may occur," Francis said.

Residents said that similar thrill hunts have occurred recently, with people knocking on doors.

"I think he got fed up with people knocking on the door. The kids have been playing in the cemetery for years," said Steven Davis, a neighbor.

Davis, 40, granted a jailhouse interview to NBC 4 hours after his arrest, saying that the use of deadly force was justified. Davis told NBC 4's Nancy Burton that he just wanted to get his side of the story out.

Davis said that his home has been targeted by what he called juvenile delinquents for months. He said that on Tuesday night, he had had enough.

Davis admitted that he never saw anyone Tuesday night, but that he heard voices outside his home, which is why he said he didn't hesitate to pick up his .22-caliber rifle and fire two shots outside his bedroom window.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were. In a situation like that you assume the worst-case scenario, if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder," he said. "I don't know whether they were simply vandals or delinquents or simple trespassers. It could very well be that they had even more violent plans for my family. It's regretful that juveniles choose to engage in delinquent behavior."

Davis will make an initial court appearance on Thursday. He was charged with five counts of felonious assault.

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

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

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

Barezinsky's classmates have planned to hold a vigil on Wednesday at 8 p.m. at Thomas Worthington High School.

Stay with NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com for additional information.
Copyright 2006 by nbc4i.com. All rights reserved.

If you enjoyed reading about "Columbus Ohio area man shoots trespassing teen" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
evan price
August 24, 2006, 02:07 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OH_SPOOKY_HOUSE_SHOOTING_OHOL-?SITE=WBNSTV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Aug 23, 11:38 PM EDT

Teen shot in head when looking for ghosts with friends

By JoANNE VIVIANO
Associated Press Writer

WORTHINGTON, Ohio (AP) -- A teenager out looking for ghosts with her friends was shot in the head near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said Wednesday.

A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting, which critically injured the girl. He told reporters Wednesday from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

The 17-year-old, Rachel Barezinsky, and two of her friends got out of their car parked near the home about 10 p.m. and took a few steps on the property, Lt. Doug Francis said. They jumped back in when a girl in the car sounded the horn, and they heard what they thought were firecrackers as they drove away.

The girls - all seniors at Thomas Worthington High School in suburban Columbus - drove around the block, and Barezinsky was struck while sitting in the car as they passed the house again and heard a second round of what turned out to be gunshots, Francis said.

Barezinsky, who also was struck in the shoulder, remained in critical condition at late Wednesday at Ohio State University Medical Center, a nursing supervisor said. Her aunt, Tina Wedebrook, told reporters Barezinsky had surgery to relieve swelling in her brain and had been able to squeeze visitors' hands but was having trouble moving the left side of her body.

Davis, a self-employed nonfiction writer, said he had prepared the rifle after numerous previous instances of trespassing but he didn't know until Wednesday that teens considered his house haunted. Police should charge the teens with trespassing, he said.

"It's really something how homeowners defend themselves and the way the laws are written, we're the ones brought up on charges while the perpetrators get little or nothing."

Francis said police do not intend to pursue charges against the girls at this point.

As the girls' car drove away from the house, the driver noticed she had blood on her arm and passengers in the back seat also discovered blood, police said. They saw Barezinsky had collapsed in the front passenger's seat and drove until they could flag down two police officers. The other girls were not injured.

Hundreds gathered on the high school football field Wednesday night for a vigil for Barezinsky, a cheerleader at the school of about 1,700 students. Barezinsky's mother briefly addressed the crowd and stood with the teens who were in the car when Barezinsky was shot.

Principal Rich Littell said he had talked to Barezinsky at a freshman welcome dance Monday night.

"It just kills you. She's a great kid, very, very athletic. She was looking forward to ... the tumbling she was going to do at the football game," he said.

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

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

Davis' home had a reputation at the high school for being haunted by ghosts and witches, and students have been daring each other to knock on the door or go in the yard, Francis said.

Zoning officers have visited the home where Davis lives with his 64-year-old mother because of complaints that the property has not been kept up, police said. Davis said his mother, who is 64, prefers natural landscaping and considers turf a "natural disaster."

Betty Davis, 69, who lives around the corner from Davis but said she is not related, said he was quiet and kept to himself. Her children played with him when they were young, she said.

She was surprised he owned a gun.

"I guess last night was the last straw," she said. "I think it blew everybody's mind it would come to this."

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Coronach
August 24, 2006, 02:14 AM
As in everything, there is more to the story...but based upon preliminary reports and his own statements to the media,

THIS GUY IS DONE.

I cannot imagine any fact that could come forward to make it a good shoot. Stand by for the leftist assault on the usage of lethal force for self defense. This guy is a walking Straw Man.

Mike :cuss:

bigun15
August 24, 2006, 02:16 AM
From what we know from the articles, he lost his temper and started shooting...

THIS GUY IS DONE.

Frog48
August 24, 2006, 02:26 AM
His "jailhouse interview" comments were pretty stupid. If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have a little better chance in court.

vynx
August 24, 2006, 02:41 AM
He should be done!

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

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

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

I hope this guy gets his just deserts.

Coronach
August 24, 2006, 04:33 AM
Oh, let me be clear, lest anyone misunderstand. He should be done, assuming that everything we think we know is correct.

And the stupidity of the jailhouse interview is about on par with the earlier actions that placed him there. So at least he is consistently stupid.

Mike

evan price
August 24, 2006, 05:34 AM
Let this be a lesson to anyone; Your 5th Amendment rights include THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT and it is to your advantage to USE THIS RIGHT.

However, this is pretty much open & shut, a bad shoot, no lethal force was authorized, when/IF this fella gets out of jail, his entire life will be owned by the girl he shot or her family.

mrtgbnkr
August 24, 2006, 09:03 AM
If they had entered the house, or were trying to enter the house, I'd be inclined to back the guy up....but shooting to "drive off trespassers" is not sufficient cause to introduce deadly force into the equation.

I'm also guessing that he hasn't secured legal counsel yet, because no defense lawyer in his right mind would allow his client to grant that interview. He has the right to remain silent, what he lacks is the ability.

ilbob
August 24, 2006, 09:07 AM
Why is the trespasser not at least partially responsible for what happened to her?

We would all be up in arms if the same thing had happened but instead of getting herself shot for being somewhere she had no right to be, had stepped in a pothole, broke her leg, and sued the homeonwer.

I agree there was no reason to use lethal force, and it sounds like the guy didn't even know who or what he was shooting at, both big no-nos in my mind.

blindndead
August 24, 2006, 09:27 AM
Why didnt he just hold her at gunpoint until police got on the scene?

Coronach
August 24, 2006, 09:28 AM
Sure, she bears some culpability. But it pales in comparison to the use of deadly force when it is (seemingly) clearly not justified. It's not even in the same league of fault. It's not really worth discussing. You cannot shoot a teenage girl for running past your house. End of story.

Mike

TallPine
August 24, 2006, 10:04 AM
In other news, police are questioning two juveniles (a brother and sister) in the disappearance of an elderly woman who lived in a small house on a wooded property. The woman had previously complained to police that her home had been vandalized.

Jim March
August 24, 2006, 10:05 AM
No argument, guy is hosed and deserves it.

But...what it looks like is, he was bullied for too long and snapped. Humans are dangerous animals. Poke one with a stick often enough, long enough, somebody will eventually get dead.

Making one guy your target of "fun" can get you killed. "Deserve" has nothing to do with it, everybody has a breaking point. Hope the kiddies learned that lesson too.

HankB
August 24, 2006, 10:16 AM
No evidence of attempted B&E, no evidence of robbery or theft, the guy just started blazing away with "sound shots" i.e., shooting at the sound of what might have been trouble . . . and then gives prosecutors (and the future civil lawsuit lawyer) plenty to work with by opening his big mouth for a jailhouse interview . . .

The guy is a moron on so many levels it isn't even funny.

The girls were certainly wrong, but to start shooting because you're annoyed is truly criminal.

(Hmmm . . . if someone is often the target of pranks, I wonder if it would be possible for them to rig up a lawn sprinkler system to disperse pepper spray . . . or nontoxic, indelible dye? :evil: )

ApexinM3
August 24, 2006, 11:37 AM
How many of us have done stupid things as a kid? A lot of us. Did it warrant the use of deadly force? Not likely. This is a horrible shoot on so many levels, it is mind boggling just how shafted this guy is-and he deserves every bit of it.

I hope the girl makes it through this, hopefully recovery will be 100%. As for Davis' family, they will bear the brunt of his stupidity-they will most likely lose their home because of this. It's a shame, really.

I hope we all learn from this, though most likely none of us on THR would be stupid enough to put ones self in the same situation.

What I fear are the repercussions of this is the Castle Doctrine laws recently passed. The leftist media will probably slander these laws and cite this shot as an example, even though it has nothing to do with said laws. :banghead:

Kentak
August 24, 2006, 11:54 AM
I hope the girl recovers quickly. I'm sure she'll never repeat that stupid behavior. Was she wrong in her actions? Absolutely. The point here is the homeowner's actions in response to the kids' pranks. His actions were many orders of magnitude more wrong. They are a terrible reflection on those of us who are responsible and reasonable gun owners and advocates of RKBA.

Teens do stupid, reckless, and disrespectful things on occasion. Even kids who are generally good kids will often go along with group pranks. 99% of the time, they aren't a serious threat to anyone, just annoying as hell. Chances are you did such things and/or your kids are--you just don't know about it.

The guy was all wrong and not in the least justified. Bad karma.

K

Greg L
August 24, 2006, 12:31 PM
This guy sounds like a moron & I hope that he goes down hard.

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

Or what if that round hit an airplane full of paralyzed orphans causing it to crash into the local convent on Mother Theresa night. Or what if that round hit an underground natural gas pipeline causing an explosion that shook the entire cemetary causing the bodies to rise from the grave as zombies.

"What if" games tend to be portrayed much worse than what actually happened in order to generate a negative emotional response towards the subject in question. If the story is true then I know that he is a dangerous idiot, I don't need to feel that he is one.

Conversely what if the rounds hit a tree in the yard scaring the girls into becoming model citizens for their lifetime. Neither happened though (zombies or model citizens) , let the guy either hang or go free based upon his own actions.

(not trying to pick on you vynx, just a minor pet peeve of mine - time to switch to decaf....:rolleyes: )

Sistema1927
August 24, 2006, 12:39 PM
"What a maroon".

This type or irresponsibility gives all of us a black eye. He deserves all that he gets.

buck00
August 24, 2006, 01:33 PM
This guy shouldn't have used deadly force to deal with the local teens, there are many other options to repel them. You either buy a BIG DOG or invest in a paintball gun. Bite marks or welts on their asses might deter them from egging you.

When we were young, the local farmer would shoot at us with rock salt from a shotgun. We learned pretty fast not to mess with his crops.

MechAg94
August 24, 2006, 02:16 PM
1. I wouldn't want to hang around outside defending my house with a paint ball gun. Might not be a dumb teenager one time. Might be an armed teenager or other criminal.

2. I would be curious if there was a history of calls to police for this or a history of actual vandalism/theft. Just curious. It might help the guy, but might not.

3. Teens do stupid, reckless, and disrespectful things on occasion. Even kids who are generally good kids will often go along with group pranks. 99% of the time, they aren't a serious threat to anyone, just annoying as hell. Chances are you did such things and/or your kids are--you just don't know about it. Yes, and sometimes teens get themselves injured or killed doing stupid stuff. There are consequences and kids learn the hard way sometimes. I am not trying to justify the shooter, just pointing that out. Teens get away with stuff a lot, but adults should not dismiss that behavior as "harmless fun" if they see it.

4. I wonder if this would be justified in Texas. It was trespassing at night. I guess it depends. Still not a good idea for a home owner to do this.

HankB
August 24, 2006, 03:27 PM
4. I wonder if this would be justified in Texas. It was trespassing at night.IANAL, but as I understand the law, I would say probably not. Texas law provides for shooting a thief at night, not a (presumed) trespasser.

There was no evidence that the girl was trying to swipe his car, a hubcap off his car, or even a lawn ornament. :rolleyes:

Under these circumstances, I don't think a TX jury would be very kind to the shooter when rendering a verdict.

High Planes Drifter
August 24, 2006, 03:57 PM
What a tragedy. Hope the young lady recovers fully, and does so very quickly. As stated before, teens do stupid stuff. Its almost a right of passage for kids to carry out anoying pranks. To shoot a kid over something like that just doesnt make sense to me. All the best to her.

Henry Bowman
August 24, 2006, 04:48 PM
Why is the trespasser not at least partially responsible for what happened to her? Let's put the shooting into what is the reported context. The girls had done their stroll up the sidewalk, returned to the car, and drove away. They circled the block and on the return pass were hit by bullets.

The 17-year-old, Rachel Barezinsky, and two of her friends got out of their car parked near the home about 10 p.m. and took a few steps on the property, Lt. Doug Francis said. They jumped back in when a girl in the car sounded the horn, and they heard what they thought were firecrackers as they drove away.

The girls - all seniors at Thomas Worthington High School in suburban Columbus - drove around the block, and Barezinsky was struck while sitting in the car as they passed the house again and heard a second round of what turned out to be gunshots, Francis said.

MechAg94
August 24, 2006, 05:04 PM
The first article says she was hit when running around the house. The 2nd article says it was when sitting in the car. The 2nd article had some more detail. Shooting someone in a car nearby in much different than shooting who is on your property. The interview with guy implied that someone was walking around on his property when he shot. The facts are little confusing. Did they get hit while in the car or did they just not notice the girl was hit until then?

Either way, it wasn't a good shoot and certainly not in that state.

He would have been better off putting on a mask and firing up a chain saw. That was scare any kids off pretty quick.

MechAg94
August 24, 2006, 05:08 PM
"Did I mean to hurt anyone? No," he said. "Our family doesn't have a good relationship with Worthington police, so we sought our own home defense. I fired shots to drive them away."
I didn't think Texas law specified it had to be a thief. I thought it was just trespassing and after dark. I think there may have to be some condition of reason to believe there was a threat to person or property. In this case, it sounds like the guy knew it was just some kids running around so I doubt Texas law would have helped him anyway.

MechAg94
August 24, 2006, 05:11 PM
Davis, who was charged with five counts of felonious assault, told officers he had been annoyed by trespassers and that he was aiming for the car's tires from his first-floor bedroom, police said.

"He admitted to never calling the police, but it just had been occurring and he got frustrated and he was upset saying someone trespassed on his property and he was protecting his property," Francis said.
I guess I missed this also. Shooting at tires is mistake #1. Not calling police is mistake #2.

c_yeager
August 24, 2006, 05:12 PM
Why is the trespasser not at least partially responsible for what happened to her?


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

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

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

Happy now?

SIRVEYR666
August 24, 2006, 05:15 PM
Hopefully we can kick this guy out of the "gun owner club" for good.

ronto
August 24, 2006, 05:22 PM
As kids, once in a while we would "raid" this old guys grape vinyard. One night after hearing him come out we were fleeing and he fired at us with a shotgun loaded with saltrock.
Hit one of my fellow "raiders" with a few grains. Lord knows we deserved it. Never went back and no charges filed. Wonder what would happen today in our lawsuit crazy world?

Vitamin G
August 24, 2006, 06:14 PM
When asked what he would say to the victim and her family, Davis replied, "Why was she engaging in delinquent behavior?"

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


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

MechAg94
August 24, 2006, 06:22 PM
Vitamin, I think people on this board excuss the behavior of stupid kids far too much, but shooting at a moving vehicle from our bedroom window is not too smart. Unless you were receiving gun fire from said car, I can't come up with a good reason to do so. I don't have a problem with the statement you quoted though.

Low-Sci
August 24, 2006, 06:25 PM
His style? His style seems to be justifying both crappy marksmanship and stupid actions in general by trying to tell us that those kids in the car that were going away were threatening him.

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

Art Eatman
August 24, 2006, 06:38 PM
Just finished the renewal stuff for my CHL, so I'm sorta "up" on Texas laws and such.

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

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

Sad...

Art

Phenom
August 24, 2006, 06:55 PM
That's just plain wrong. There was absolutely no reason to shoot at the kids. The guy should be charged with attempted murder. Someone comes on my property without permission I usually glare at them and tell them to get off if I catch them. There was no reason for a firearm to be used. I would reverse the prank via a Tippmann WetWilly paint grenade:D

cyanide
August 24, 2006, 07:22 PM
He should be done!

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

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

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

I hope this guy gets his just deserts.

Really ?

Many cops have shot kids who have been engaged in pranks

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

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

Phenom
August 24, 2006, 07:28 PM
There's still no reason for attempting to kill the kid.

Henry Bowman
August 24, 2006, 07:29 PM
:banghead: Contrary to "conventional wisdom," the law in Texas is not necessarily the law in the rest of the world! This happened in Ohio!

Car Knocker
August 24, 2006, 07:37 PM
Personally I hope he gets off, kids need to know they can't just do whatever they want to anymore.

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

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

ccwolff
August 24, 2006, 08:05 PM
Detectives said that when the girls ran around the house, a person who lives inside the house, Allen Davis, fired the shots.

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

Trespassing does not justify the application of deadly force.
I disagree.

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

solareclipse
August 24, 2006, 08:14 PM
one nutcase less on the street.

Green Lantern
August 24, 2006, 08:25 PM
This shooting is 100% unjustified in my book.

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

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

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

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

theotherrookieshooter
August 24, 2006, 08:25 PM
"The leftist media will probably slander these laws and cite this shot as an example, even though it has nothing to do with said laws"

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

Green Lantern
August 24, 2006, 08:30 PM
Errrrrrr......ummmm....well, it IS called "legal and political."

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

Kentak
August 24, 2006, 08:51 PM
Have you seen a photo of Davis? I know it's not fair to judge someone by their appearance, but, good grief, not the picture I want the general public to have when they think "gun owner."

K

Phenom
August 24, 2006, 08:57 PM
Post the photo, post the photo:D

Kentak
August 24, 2006, 08:58 PM
cyanide,

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

K

Kentak
August 24, 2006, 09:02 PM
Davis:

http://www.10tv.com/10tv/content/images/200608/News_AllenDavis2_160.jpg

Phenom
August 24, 2006, 09:08 PM
What the heck kind of haircut is that :eek:

1911Tuner
August 24, 2006, 09:10 PM
Rule 4...Always be certain of your target...etc etc.

Kentak
August 24, 2006, 09:48 PM
cyanide,

I apologize for my earlier remarks. You have a right to express your opinion. I should have focused on the issue and not made a personal attack. Perhaps you could explain more about why you feel Davis is deserving of "getting off."

K

Vitamin G
August 24, 2006, 10:39 PM
http://www.10tv.com/10tv/content/images/200608/News_AllenDavis2_160.jpg

What the heck kind of haircut is that? :eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Bowlcut.gif

BOWL CUT!!!

Redneck with a 40
August 25, 2006, 02:42 AM
Just goes to show you that some people don't have the mental capacity to use a gun responsibly. This guy is an idiot, he fired the gun without any justification, there was NO threat. I hope this guy enjoys his cell mate bubba!:eek:

c_yeager
August 25, 2006, 03:50 AM
Many cops have shot kids who have been engaged in pranks

This guy shot the kids FOR engaging in pranks, not while engaging in pranks. I'm sure that you are able to understand the difference. Wanna give us a source for the police shooting a child for engaging in a prank?

Mark Whiteman
August 25, 2006, 04:03 AM
This guy was described as a 40yo non-fiction writer? Well, in his mind, those things he was writing about were real...

evan price
September 2, 2006, 04:48 PM
CCwolf and Cyanide: Exactly what part of ANY state's laws do you feel allows the shooting of trespassers at will? I really don't see it anywhere in the law books I've looked through. So if you believe this is true how many neighbors or delivery people do you receive and have shot?



As far as Davis' appearance, all I think of is "Hey Mo!"

ccwolff
September 2, 2006, 09:52 PM
Bringing this one back from the dead, huh?

This thread was about one thing: a man shooting a unarmed girl.
Had it been about a man shooting a male nightstalker, then every post would be people braging about their "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT, SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN" signs and praising the shooter.

When the guy fired it seemed to me from the story that he believed that either his family or his property was in danger. I happen to agree with shooting people who threaten either of the above no matter who they are.

I'm not your legal clerk so I'll let you find and interpret the laws regarding defending family and property from trespassers. Or better yet I'll let a jury of his peers do that.

If I was on that jury and he convinced me that when he fired that shot he was acting in defence of his family or property, I would not convict him, no matter how ridiculous he looked and even if he had shot Jesus Christ on his second comming.;)

So if you believe this is true how many neighbors or delivery people do you receive and have shot?

Every one of them that has tried to steal my property or harm my family.;) :rolleyes:

cassandrasdaddy
September 2, 2006, 10:00 PM
could peddle defense except he shot her in a car in the street.after it had circled the block. we had a case here where a guy filled his tank and dashed. station attendant hopped in his car and chased what he thought was the guy who dashed. followed him 5 miles home called cops the whole handcuffs bit. oops wrong guy! and since his tank was empty i believe him and so did the cops. can we say lawsuit. If he was so threatened he shoulda shot while they were on his property not the street

MechAg94
September 2, 2006, 10:18 PM
Contrary to "conventional wisdom," the law in Texas is not necessarily the law in the rest of the world! This happened in Ohio!
:) Yeah, so what? If you want to talk about Ohio laws go right ahead. :)
I was thinking of Texas laws since Texas has some specific provisions for trespassing after dark.

richyoung
September 4, 2006, 10:36 PM
Just finished the renewal stuff for my CHL, so I'm sorta "up" on Texas laws and such.

It doesn't matter if the gal was jumping up and down in the guy's yard and screaming all manner of insults: There's no physical threat, either apparent or real, and thus no justification for any use of deadly force.

You have been misinformed as to Texas law, Art.

"§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994."

beerslurpy
September 4, 2006, 11:33 PM
Long before you consider owning a gun for self defense, you should understand the legal justifications for shooting people and understand the things that sound like good reasons but are not legal justifications. It isnt hard. This man didnt do his homework, tried to BS his way out of it and now he is gonna do a long stint in the pokey, assuming he doesnt get the chair.

He admitted on TV that he killed people who were merely annoying him. He also indicated that this was his response to a long train of annoyances- thus implying that he premeditated the entire shooting and lay in wait for them.

What a complete retard.

edit: woops, didnt realize how old this thread was. I must have been moving when it was first posted

The_Antibubba
September 5, 2006, 01:27 AM
He had no idea who he was shooting at. In fact, he was firing RANDOM shots! If he had done the same thing but instead hit someone who did mean him harm, he might still be facing charges of some sort. Probably just as well the cops weren't called-it might very well have been an officer that was pulling up.


It's like a drive-by shooting in reverse. :what:

ccwolff
September 5, 2006, 01:59 AM
Long before you consider owning a gun for self defense, you should understand the legal justifications for shooting people and understand the things that sound like good reasons but are not legal justifications.

I disagree, the only thing you should understand is how the gun works.
When defending your property and family the law sould be the furthest thing from your mind.
Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.
If your in the right the jury will understand, if your in the wrong you would know it and so will the jury.

gunsmith
September 5, 2006, 03:21 AM
anyone who would walk around with a haircut like that deserves a life sentence...did the girl die??

If you enjoyed reading about "Columbus Ohio area man shoots trespassing teen" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!