Shooting through closed doors pays off...


PDA






Sindawe
October 10, 2006, 02:29 PM
for one teenager in Texas.Corpus Christi teen kills burglar in home, police say

CORPUS CHRISTI — A 14-year-old boy shot and killed a man who broke into his family's home today and threatened to kill him and his mother, Police Chief Bryan Smith said.

Smith said the man, whose name was not immediately known, confronted a woman as she was carrying groceries into her home shortly before 1 p.m.


The man forced her inside and tied up her and her son. Smith said the woman was able to loosen the binding and free her son, who got his father's revolver from a security box beneath a bed.

As the man tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both, the teen fired a shot through the door and hit the intruder in the head, Smith said.

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4247120.html One less sorry waste of food and air cluttering up the planet.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting through closed doors pays off..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
robert garner
October 10, 2006, 02:38 PM
I love a happy ending!
When it's time to shoot,shoot,don't talk.
Tuco

Hanzo581
October 10, 2006, 02:56 PM
fantastic, I am sure they would have been in trouble if they had to wait for the police to show up.

Cut out the middle man, I always say :neener:

Carl N. Brown
October 10, 2006, 03:05 PM
Would a "reasonable person" be in fear of imminent death or greivous
bodily harm in those circumstances? Given the available facts, I would
say yes. I would also say the assailant had the duty to retreat.

This is not even remotely as cloudy as that AZ dog walker situation.

The kid is going to have to live with the nightmare of his mother
and him threatened with death, and having to kill the threat. As
claer and "righteous" as this shooting appears to be, something like
this is a heavy burden to bear.

Crosshair
October 10, 2006, 03:08 PM
I think that boy is gona get his own gun for christmas.:D Sucks that he had to take a life, but totaly justified.

High Planes Drifter
October 10, 2006, 04:28 PM
That youngster has a vary heavy burden to carry around from now on. That kid became a man that day, in my book anyway.

SoCalShooter
October 10, 2006, 04:42 PM
Thats a great ending. Unfortunate for the child that he has to bear the fact that he ended a life but he has the solice of knowing he was protecting his mother and himself and knowing that he may have prevented this purp from doing the same thing to someone else.

Gewehr98
October 10, 2006, 05:03 PM
Buy that kid a ceegar!

He did the right thing, but the cigar money would best be spent on counseling, he's got that particular burden on his conscience the rest of his life, and the questions about the incident won't stop until long afterwards.

buzz_knox
October 10, 2006, 05:24 PM
Maybe he will have issues, maybe not. Not everyone is affected that way, particularly when it comes to stopping someone clearly bent on harming you and your mother. I'd say it's equally as likely that the events leading up to the shooting will be more traumatic. That is, unless everyone tells him how terrible he should feel about doing this. All too often, a shooter's reaction is caused more by society's reaction to their act of self-defense than it is from the act itself.

Eyesac
October 10, 2006, 05:25 PM
That warms my heart. Again, bad guy stopped, good guy at home with family. Great story.

Otherguy Overby
October 10, 2006, 05:31 PM
Seriously, why should people feel guilt for killing a miscreant? They performed a "civic duty." How is this different than applying the liberal "social contract" rule?

We aren't talking about murdering "humans" here...

razorburn
October 10, 2006, 05:46 PM
Sometimes you just feel the way you feel. He shouldn't have to feel anything about it, but he probably does because he's human, and it's a significant thing to kill someone else. And the social contract isn't some liberal thing, it's a philosophical theory on the development of civilization, I'm not sure what it really has to do with this conversation or why you brought it up.

DogBonz
October 10, 2006, 05:58 PM
Seriously, why should people feel guilt for killing a miscreant?

But there is something about taking a human life, no matter how justified, that leaves some, if not most people traumatized. I know a few police officers who walk a pretty tough beat. Three of them have killed people in the line of duty. These were all clear cut, clean shoots. One of them has no problem at all with what he has done; the other two have frequent nightmares and required a lot of counseling before they could return to work. I think that we all talk a good game, but you never know how you will react of feel in the aftermath.

Low-Sci
October 10, 2006, 06:13 PM
Seems to me that one should address the issue of possible mental trauma when it arises. This kid did a fantastic thing under an enormous amount of stress and he was absolutely in the right when he did it.

Protecting one's family should be considered a right and normal action. To that end, I think this kid should be treated right and normally for his actions. Pushing him into therapy when he doesn't really need it would only serve to make him think that he'd done something wrong and it would slap some sort of mental illness label on him (if the therapist doesn't, insurance won't pay him).

This kid should be rewarded for a right and frankly heroic action. And if he looks like he needs therapy, then offer it. Until he does, leave the psychiatrists out of it.

Otherguy Overby
October 10, 2006, 06:18 PM
razorburn:
Sometimes you just feel the way you feel. He shouldn't have to feel anything about it, but he probably does because he's human, and it's a significant thing to kill someone else. And the social contract isn't some liberal thing, it's a philosophical theory on the development of civilization, I'm not sure what it really has to do with this conversation or why you brought it up.

OIC, the "social contract" has nothing to do with self defense. This youngin' should have first considered this before shooting someone who was a deadly threat to his mother and himself...

Pardon me while I :barf:

mbt2001
October 10, 2006, 06:18 PM
Good job kid.

I had a debate on this board a few months ago when a kid stabbed someone to death trying to save his family and then pretty much watched the dude expire... That is heavy. Kid most likely will have nightmares for a long time...

I do not think that the kid will be over burdened with guilt. In this instance, the kid was detained, got away, got a weapon, shot through a door. There is an element of God in this. He could have missed, as shooting through a door is iffy... But he didn't... That element of fate / providence is what will make the difference.

kid needs attention, don't get me wrong. The person that will need counseling is his old man...

Edit -

I am also betting it was a .357 mag that pop had.... Any one else have ideas?

Autolycus
October 10, 2006, 07:03 PM
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before.

Double Naught Spy
October 10, 2006, 07:42 PM
I would also say the assailant had the duty to retreat.

What? The BG assaulted with woman, did a home invasion, tied up her son and herself, and apparently after freeing themselves and barricading themselves in a room, he threatened to kill them and you think he had a duty to retreat? Bad guys don't have duties. He didn't have a duty to retreat because he didn't have right to be in the home and committing felonies.


All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before.

Probably not, but I would hazard that they aren't so much happy about the kid killing the guy as they are about the kid rising to the occasion when the fit has hit the shan and dealing effectively with a threat that had already demonstrated aggressive behavior toward his mother and him. It is just a benefit that the perp died as a result of his felony acts of aggression, meaning that he will never be a blight on society again, not having done horrible things to the mother and kid, and he won't get out of jail and be able to visit them in the future either.

Mentally traumatized and physically healthy with no chance of the guy returning is better than being mentally and physically dead or everyone alive and the perp still on the loose and the good guys having been mentally traumatized because the bad guy took away any sense of security they had as they could do nothing and did do nothing. Instead, the future looks much better now than when the perp was banging on the door.

Seriously, why should people feel guilt for killing a miscreant?

Logically, they should not. That is the problem with emotions. They are not logical. People often feel guilty for doing the right thing when it is something they would prefer not to have done.

The person that will need counseling is his old man...

What??? You mean his mother, right? His old man wasn't even there and didn't suffer the event.

Sindawe
October 10, 2006, 08:10 PM
Folks, unless I'm mistaken I think Carl N. Brown was referring to the assailant who is now at room temperature, not the kid who had to help the assailant reach that temperature.

Art Eatman
October 10, 2006, 09:37 PM
When a post upsets somebody, it's probably not a bad idea to re-read it a couple or more times. Make sure you're understanding what the writer is intending. It's sorta like a conversation when somebody's tongue gets wrapped around an eyetooth and they can't see what they're saying.

Saves thrash and hassle in a thread...

Art

Gewehr98
October 10, 2006, 09:41 PM
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before.

Once again, I'm reminded that we've got an abundance of stone-cold shootists here on THR, hiding behind internet handles. It reminds me of those who parrot the "If he's in my house, he's dead" argument regarding the new Castle Doctrine laws. Hollywood aside, some of us still place a value on human life, and it very well could invoke soul-searching even after a defensible shooting.

Note that I didn't say our young hero was horribly effected by the shooting. I said that money or resources should be set aside for potential counseling, if he needs it - not unlike the chaplains and psychologists available for me in my own sheriff's department were I to drop a bad guy in his tracks and need to talk to somebody about it.

I bet dollars to donuts that not everybody is as stoic as internet personas on gun forums, and considering the events leading up to that defensive shooting, he may very well have trouble sleeping at night for a while. Then again, he and Mom may sell the movie rights...


BTW, Medula Oblongata, Carl N. Brown (libtard?) was referring to the bad guy's duty to retreat. Nice big bold colors, though! Now, would you care to apologize to him in those same big bold colors? :scrutiny:

expvideo
October 10, 2006, 10:23 PM
"If we had passed the child trigger lock provision, those guns would not be used..."

Thank you, Mr Clinton. Take a bow.

Standing Wolf
October 10, 2006, 10:49 PM
I'll bet that criminal won't try that again very soon.

The Deer Hunter
October 10, 2006, 10:57 PM
I dont understand why anybody would feel bad about killing said criminal.

Don't Tread On Me
October 10, 2006, 11:34 PM
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!


This *AGAIN* proves that penetration is a BENEFIT, not a Liability!!!!!! I've been preaching that for a while.


Also, see this link from the past:


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/8287436/detail.html

Jackson and his son ran into a back bedroom and locked the door. Jackson told his son to hide under a bed and then grabbed a 30-06 rifle and started loading it. Police said the intruder then fired two rounds from a 30.30 rifle through the closed bedroom door.

Jackson yelled at him to leave and fired one round from his weapon through the bedroom door into the hallway. The intruder fired two more rounds and then began busting open the bedroom door, police said.

At that point Jackson fired another round, which apparently struck the intruder in the right hip area. The door remained closed and Jackson and his son stayed in the bedroom until officers arrived.




The "penetration" worrywarts are spreading dangerous misinformation and myths. They are endangering many gunowners who contemplate home defense strategies by putting a huge over-emphasis on over-penetration dangers to bystanders. This ultimately influences a lot of people to use highly inferior varmint .223 bullets...



I'll stick with my 7.62x39mm thank you very much...

Sam
October 11, 2006, 12:09 AM
Folks only feel bad about shooting scum when they are trained to fell bad about it.

Good shoot and the kid ought to get a prize.

Anyone who warped him to the point of needing counseling needs teh everloving stuffing kicked out of them.

Sam

Hanzo581
October 11, 2006, 12:12 AM
well said, he shoud feel proud that he saved not only his own life, but that of his mothers as well

and perhaps saved others from being hurt later by that scum

MDMadrid
October 11, 2006, 12:23 AM
but the cigar money would best be spent on counseling

Cigars money should never be spent on anything but cigars!:D
He should smoke the cigar while he is being counseled(that way he is not too bored):neener:

PythonFan
October 11, 2006, 01:04 AM
I think if I were the kid that shot him I would probably feel guilty about not feeling guilty that I shot the perp when everyone told me I was supposed to feel guilty.

razorburn
October 11, 2006, 01:46 AM
OIC, the "social contract" has nothing to do with self defense. This youngin' should have first considered this before shooting someone who was a deadly threat to his mother and himself...

Pardon me while I

What the heck are you talking about now? Is this some kind of sarcasm? Did you think I somehow said something about how he shouldn't have shot the guy? Because I didn't say anything like that at all, if you're mistaken about that. I don't know where you'd get that impression. Does anyone else out there understand what this guy is trying to say? Has your refridgerator box been emitting freon?

mbt2001
October 11, 2006, 01:55 AM
"There, but for the grace of God, go I..."



That is not a PC response. That is a PROOF.... For instance, if any of you were ME, then you would be ME. Q E D

There is no debate, so for that reason, I think that people should not act cavalier about shooting someone or otherwise killing them in anyway.

"...For my homies...."

Jason M.
October 11, 2006, 02:01 AM
I dont understand why anybody would feel bad about killing said criminal.

I feel bad for the kid who was put into a position by some a-hole where he had to defend himself. Like other have said, it doesn't matter if what you've done was right, when it involves harm lots of people just feel guilty. I hope he does well.

mbt2001
October 11, 2006, 02:05 AM
Agreeing with the above post (the one by Jason M.)...

You have the FREEDOM to bust into someone's house and break laws. You do not have the RIGHT to come away unscathed.

You have the RIGHT to shoot someone, but not without consequences... Repeat that. You do not have the RIGHT to a trouble free, productive life. You have the RIGHT to exist, but not without consquences...

Now extrapolate that out....

Cosmoline
October 11, 2006, 03:02 AM
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before

No, we're just happy not to be reading about yet another woman and child found brutally sliced up by persons unknown. Some killings are justified but leave you with a question mark. But this one? That thing the boy killed was no more than a crazed animal. He shouldn't lose a moment's sleep over it.

As the man tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both,

I mean--come on. This isn't some teen trying half-heartedly to rob a motel when you put six slugs in his gut and chest. This is a stone cold ANIMAL. Not worth anything. Not worth salt. Not worth salvation. In more civilized times the locals would hack such animals up and leave their body parts on display as a message--this line you DO NOT cross. And tying up a mother and boy, then coming in to slaughter them? That's WAY over the line. It doesn't even qualify as honest crime, like robbing a bank.

It's the old, old notion of a good killing. There are folks need to be stopped with deadly force, and sometimes they die. Maybe they would have done better in life, maybe not. It's too bad, and I know it messes people up. I've known folks who've had to take that step and I don't envy them. But then there are folks who need to be KILLED. This fellow was one of them. No tears should be shed for such a thing, and in this case (thankfully) no time will be served for it either.

BullfrogKen
October 11, 2006, 03:20 AM
mbt2001 said: I think that people should not act cavalier about shooting someone or otherwise killing them in anyway

The man forced his way in, tied up the boy and his mother, then, after they loosed their bonds, the boy shot and killed that intruder. Yes, both he and his mother are going to have to take some time to come to grips with what happened.


Victims of burglaries generally attest to some feeling of being violated in their home. Survivors of tragedies express guilt over living thru the event when those they love died. Its human emotion.


I wish I were as bad as the rest of you. Personally, if that happened to my family, I'd have trouble sleeping in my house that night.

XavierBreath
October 11, 2006, 08:48 AM
This boy became a M A N when he took the safety of his family upon himself, the way men do.Becoming a man involves much more than assuming the role of protector of one's family. Some males become men and some never do. Any man I have ever known and respected, however, would agree that taking a life does not result in the killer becoming a man. A male becomes a man when other men recognize him as such. It requires quite a bit more than killing an attacker.

The big bright colorful letters are unnecessary.
The chest beating here is humorous.
The ad hominem attacks are contrary to THR.

This thread has a lot of potential. Lets keep it open.

Several posts have been edited for language so my eleven year old daughter can read this thread. Thank you for your understanding.

XavierBreath
October 11, 2006, 09:19 AM
I said taking responsibility for the safety of one's family doesThere are many persons who take responsibility for the safety of their families, that most men would not consider to be men.

The majority of these "non-men" people are women. If you want to toss aside the gender differences, there are many social misfits i.e. gangster/criminal types who take care of their family's safety. I personally know quite a few criminal gangster types who still care for their elder family members, often passionately and tenderly. Are they men? I would say not. I consider a man to be more than a protector. Protection of one's family is part of the role, but manhood consists of more.

Do you define family only as a group formed by a man and a woman sanctified by God? If not, do you consider the Crips who protect their families to be men? Does Charlie Manson fit your definition of manhood?

I am not saying that taking responsibility for the safety of one's family is not a component of manhood. I am saying that manhood consists of much much more.

Chest thumping and posturing is often ignored by the silverback, who recognizes it for what it is. The silverback watches for strategic manuvering.

I enjoyed the colors, but they tended to over ride the points that were being made.

gunsmith
October 11, 2006, 10:55 AM
A head shot through a closed door!
The young man is an astoundingly good marksman!!!

No wonder so many here are upset, they're jealous.:neener:

hankdatank1362
October 11, 2006, 11:13 AM
Well, if this experience didn't make that boy into a man, I know what it did turn him into.

A damn hero. And he deserves all our respect and prayers.

crunker
October 11, 2006, 09:47 PM
Good for him.

Teenage home defenders - 1
Stupid and greedy criminal - 0

TexasRifleman
October 11, 2006, 10:28 PM
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before

I'm much happier reading this than I would be reading about how some poor kid and his mother were killed by a scumbag.

So yes, I'm quite happy about the kid killing the guy THAT WAS ABOUT TO KILL HIM

Sheesh, some of you........

ctdonath
October 11, 2006, 10:46 PM
Humans are generally wired to feel remorse upon killing another. It's not so much a matter of social programming, "he deserved it", justification, etc., it's that the brain just does certain things in response to certain events. Some people don't feel such remorse for various reasons, but most do.

It's normal. They won't "just get over it". It's how their brains are wired. Yours probably is too, you just haven't been in the situation to find out.

Go read On Killing for more details.

On a related note:
I've been making a point of observing my own natural reactions to "outer limits" events. We have a standard mindset for most normal circumstances, but some of those extreme human events (abnormal events, or uncommon normal events) can induce emotional reactions sharply at odds with higher cognitive reasoning and training. We can rationalize what should happen, but the brain doesn't react that way with extreme circumstances.

the 22 junkie
October 11, 2006, 11:16 PM
I gotta meet this guy and give him a pat on the back. Too bad most kids his (and my) age wouldn't do that. All that crap they're feeding 'em in the schools. :cuss:

Cosmoline
October 11, 2006, 11:42 PM
Go read On Killing for more details

Read this first:

http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

Man I get tired of this bunk. SLA's methodology was hopeless, and his findings totally failed to distinguish between those soldiers who hold fire for SOUND TACTICAL REASONS (no target clear, uncertainty about target, decision to avoid giving position away, no orders to fire, poor position to fire from, etc. etc. etc.) and those very, very few soldiers who had a kraut lined up and simply couldn't pull the trigger. Out of all the soldiers on the front line of hot combat, only a very small number are ever going to see Mr. Kraut walk out in the street and wave a banner, waiting to be shot. And to claim that most men can't fire when faced with that situation is absurd nonsense. Of course, that hasn't prevented a lot of con men from making big bucks off of the "science" of "killology" :barf:

Beyond this, the whole notion that people are "wired" to not kill flies in the face of millions of years of human existence. We are the greatest killers on the planet, BAR NONE. I know a mild mannered, deeply religious Korean fellow who without hesitation put six slugs in a kid trying to rob him, not twenty feet from where I sit now. I know of a quiet pastor near where I used to live who shot two men with a .44 Magnum without hesitation, killing both. I know other people who have also taken human life without any special training and they showed no hesitation. That's not to say they're not upset by the whole thing, but when it came to it they TOOK LIFE, and it didn't take some stinking program approved by Grossman to train them to do it.

Look at the Winter War, for example. We know the Finns had very limited artillery supprt and a dire shortage of any kind of heavy weapons. So you can't come in with the usual nonsense about how all the actual killing is done with high explosives. They had simple shoulder arms and used them to slaughter far more than their number of Red Army troops. The reason had nothing to do with the lethality of Finns. Most of them were simple farmers with no special efforts made to turn them into "killing machines." But that's exactly what they became, because the need arose. It was one of the rare cases by that point where the enemy still used mass, disorganized charges to try to take positions. So the SA men had good targets, and they took their shots carefully.

For the love of Pete, people, look how many everyday Americans with NO TRAINING AT ALL who slaughter their fellow man evey year, year in and year out. Tens of thousands every year. When you remove the basic framework of civilization even a little bit and add a depression or famine, these numbers can and usuallly do skyrocket.

The fact that the bright bulbs in the five sided building decided that recruits needed to be engrained with the "killer instinct" proves nothing more than SLA's good salesmanship. I often wonder if this manic, wild-eyed training doesn't just make the volunteers jumpy and prone to waste too much ammo.

And here we have a little kid who takes a man's life to defend his mother. Again with no special training and no effort to make him a killing machine. SLA was full of it.

And to top off my rant, consider this. The notion that only those who have been trained to kill can reliably kill feeds directly into the anti arguments that's any meek "sheep" civilian who has a sidearm is just going to have it taken from them by the "wolves," because the civilian will not have the "killer instinct" and will never be able to pull the trigger. It's bunk, people. And WE DISPROVE IT.

.38 Special
October 11, 2006, 11:59 PM
Well, I've never killed a human being and I hope I never have to. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it is a traumatic thing, even if the killing is entirely justified.

OTOH, I put in my time on the ambulance and I saw a lot of not entirely pleasant stuff. I've finished calls and gone around behind the station to cry for a while. Kid calls, domestic abuse calls, the elderly man who'd spent half an hour trapped in the wreckage of his car with his decapitated wife of 53 years next to him. I'm human, and I've hurt for other's suffering.

But I've also had my share of "gangstas" and other such folks in my ambulance, and while I did my job, I'm boozy enough at the moment to admit that I couldn't have cared less when they died while looking into my face.

This world is better off when certain people die. I hope the kid in this story can believe that.

DRZinn
October 12, 2006, 10:52 AM
I've never, as far as I know (they went down, but?), killed anyone, but if it was in clear self-defense against a direct assault I'm quite positive it would bother me about as much as squashing a bug.

Gewehr98
October 12, 2006, 01:26 PM
Nobody's arguing that the shot shouldn't have been taken, nor did Ctdonath urge pacifism - the topic of your last rant. I have no problem plugging somebody intent on killing me. It's the aftermath that may cause problems with a person's psyche.

Discussion of that is now elsewhere, you know where to find it. ;)

strambo
October 12, 2006, 04:09 PM
I often wonder if this manic, wild-eyed training doesn't just make the volunteers jumpy and prone to waste too much ammo.
Cosmoline, what in the world are you talking about? I know you were on a rant and understand (about rants), I think you and good 'ol SLA are on opposite sides and the truth is in the middle. I can tell you for a fact, current US Army training bears no resemblance whatsoever to that statement. If soldiers miss it's because they aren't applying the fundamentals of marksmanship, not because they were trained in some crazy fashion.

Realistic training is a good prescription (not cure) for PTSD. It lets the soldiers know what to expect and mentally prepare for it. Sure, people can kill if they have to. The person who thinks long and hard about it. Trains for it, knows what it will look and sound like, knows what wounds look like, will have much less stress when they have to do it than someone who hasn't thought much about it at all. It's like anything unknown, a thorough briefing on exactly what to expect beforehand is a big help.

As far as tens of thousands of Americans getting murdered, well that's done by a distinct minority of the population. Yes, there are lots of reasons not to fire in combat, including the ones Marshall and Grossman talk about as well as the ones you mention.

Like .38 special said, he's seen plenty of death. He knows what to expect, what it looks like. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had little or no emotional trauma at all after a just shooting. He knows (not just intellectually) exactly what the consequences are before he pulls that trigger. I've never watched anyone die...it would probably affect me more.

eukanuba
October 12, 2006, 05:55 PM
Stories like this warm my heart. I'd like to pat that young man on the back.

XavierBreath
October 12, 2006, 07:21 PM
Police: Intruder was in prison several times (http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_5058140,00.html)
Man had committed other burglaries and violated his parole

By mary ann cavazos Caller-Times
October 11, 2006


A 57-year-old man who was shot and killed by his 14-year-old hostage Monday at a home on Ocean Drive had been released from jail Friday and had committed several other burglaries, including a similar home invasion, according to police and court records.

Capt. John Houston said the man, who police identified through fingerprinting Tuesday as James Slaughter, had been involved in criminal activities since 1967 and was in and out of the prison system on several occasions.

"His (method of operation) was to break into homes. If someone was there, he'd tie them up," Houston said.

Police said they received a call from Rose Ann Kozlowski from her home in the 4200 block of Ocean Drive at 12:55 p.m. Monday reporting that a man had bound her and her son Michael and held them at knifepoint.

Houston said Rose Ann Kozlowski made the call after she freed herself and before Slaughter was shot but investigators were still trying to piece together a detailed timeline of the events late Tuesday.

An attorney for the Kozlowski family said he is certain Michael, a ninth-grade student at Incarnate Word Academy, acted purely out of self-defense.

"The truth is it was absolutely justified," said attorney Jimmy Granberry. "They'd all like to get back to the life they had, but they probably won't be able to."

The Kozlowskis referred all questions to Granberry.

"This is such a rare thing to happen. It's everybody's worst nightmare, but they're tough people. I think they're going to be OK," Granberry said.

Sister Anna Marie Espinosa, president of Incarnate Word Academy, said Michael has been a student there since elementary school and she expected him to be out for several more days.

"He's anxious to get back to school," Granberry said, adding the teen is also an avid soccer player.

According to police reports, Rose Ann Kozlowski had picked up Michael from school after he became ill and the two returned home. She then took a short trip to the grocery store and, upon her return home, was confronted by Slaughter, who threatened to kill her. He had a folding knife with a 4- to 5-inch locking blade.

Slaughter led the two to the upstairs master bedroom, where he bound their arms with men's neckties from the closet and ransacked the house for jewelry and other valuables, putting those items in the family's SUV.

She freed herself once, but Slaughter bound her arms again with more ties.

After freeing herself a second time and untying her teenage son, she took her husband's six-shot revolver from a security box under the bed, handed it to her son and locked the double doors to the bedroom.

Houston said that Slaughter heard the two moving around and tried to force his way back into the bedroom.

"He would slip the knife through the door and push it open a few inches to a foot," Houston said.

Michael aimed the pistol at the space between the partially open doors and fired one shot as Slaughter was trying to force his way in.

When officers arrived, they found Slaughter with a gunshot wound to the face.

Investigators said they also are looking for possible accomplices because neighbors reported seeing a suspicious 1970s green, four-door Lincoln Continental or Mercury Marquis about an hour and a half before the burglary drive slowly past several homes.

Slaughter, who lived in several Texas cities, was sentenced to 45 years in prison in 1984 for a break-in at a home in Taft the previous year. He tied up the couple and then fled the scene in their vehicle, which he packed with clothing and valuables. Earlier that day, Slaughter had also stolen a Corpus Christi woman's purse and vehicle.

San Patricio Sheriff Leroy Moody said Slaughter led deputies on a brief chase that ended when they rammed the stolen vehicle.

Slaughter was arrested after Moody and another deputy were forced to shoot him twice when he raised a rifle and pointed it at them.

He was paroled in 2000. Authorities said he was arrested again in June for violating his parole and transferred back to a Travis County jail.

Despite his feeling Slaughter never should have been paroled, Moody said ultimately the system was not to blame.

"He chose the lifestyle he lived. It's all about choices," Moody said.

Local residents at the nearby H-E-B on Alameda Street and Robert Drive commended the teenager for his actions.

"I would have done the same thing. I'm glad (Slaughter) won't be able to do it again," said Tanya Brandon, the mother of a 6-year-old girl. "He was protecting his family."

Yvette Contreras, who lives on Grossman Drive, said the recent burglary has made her reconsider keeping a gun in her home.

"They probably would have been killed if he hadn't shot him," Contreras said. "Nowadays, it seems like it's happening everywhere."

gunsmith
December 6, 2006, 11:41 AM
and I had not seen the update.
I wonder how many times they were gonna let that skell outta jail?

Rachen
December 6, 2006, 12:05 PM
so I guess I will buy his mom a drink and buy the kid a Henry Big Boy .44 Magnum lever rifle:D :D :D :D :D

Two heroes in a harrowing situation. I don't want to imagine what would happen if the service revolver was not there.

SalTx
December 6, 2006, 09:38 PM
I never understand why someone has to feel bad about doing the right thing?..

David904
December 6, 2006, 11:52 PM
I think that knowing that he saved his family's lives by doing what he did probably relieved him of most of the sense of guilt that comes with taking a life. Support from his neighbors in the community should ensure his ability to smoothly continue with his life.

I'm with Bullfrog though... If that happened in my house, I don't think that I would sleep too soundly in my house after that either. Not for quite some time at least. I'd definitely see to improving my security and contingency plans.

Tim James
December 7, 2006, 11:16 AM
Despite his feeling Slaughter never should have been paroled, Moody said ultimately the system was not to blame.Sounds like someone is embarrassed that a boy had to do the job that the system wouldn't do.

Correia
December 7, 2006, 03:14 PM
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before

I wouldn't say that.

Everybody is different. My job enables me to work with a lot of people who would be considered killers.

Some have no issue at all with taking a life. Others do. Humans are complicated, and each of us is wired different.

The Real Hawkeye
December 7, 2006, 04:17 PM
Good job! The boy should be very proud of himself. I hope he doesn't allow some social worker to convince him he should be guilt ridden for taking a human life. When someone has it coming, the correct feeling for doing them in is pride.

CountGlockula
December 7, 2006, 05:24 PM
The kid loved his mother enough to stop a deadly threat that would left him motherless.

I hope the kid grows up to be an excelled LEO.

dfaugh
December 8, 2006, 11:05 AM
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before

On the money.

Did he do the right thing? Absolutely. Was he justifed? Absolutely.

Will he someday (today, tomorrow, next month, a few years from now) have a problem with the fact that he killed another human being? Probably.

No matter how heroic/righteous the killing of another may be at the time, it can also come back to haunt you in many ways, and often far removed in time. Trust me on this, speaking from experience. I sincerely HOPE this won't cause him any problems, but the potential is there.

Oddly, I'm now consider myself a devout "pacifist"...But, I also wouldn't hesitate for a split second to take out the BG, if I have to. Once upon a time I would tell you, that I wouldn't feel any remorse, but now I know better (I now have nightmares about things that happened 35 years ago, even though I was "OK" with it for many years). The human mind is a strange thing, and the results of any trauma can be wholly unpredictable, and not well understood.

ctdonath
December 8, 2006, 07:12 PM
Oddly, I'm now consider myself a devout "pacifist"...I contend that a true pacifist is skilled in and equipped for violence - precisely so unwarranted violence can be halted as quickly and efficiently as possible. Namby-pamby "pacifists" actually cause more harm by not stopping harm when they are capable (or should be) of doing so.

Remember the Shaolin monks: completely pacifist, invented and perfected Kung-Fu. Go figure.

The Real Hawkeye
December 8, 2006, 07:27 PM
I think it has a lot to do with how society responds to the killing. If he is universally hailed as a hero, he is much less likely to have problems with it at any time. If the leftists keep telling him how he must be suffering inside for having done that, then that's what he will eventually start to feel. The human species is very much psychologically influenced by societal reactions to their conduct. It's almost unavoidable. But, in my opinion, the appropriate response for the boy to feel is pride in having done the right and courageous thing when the moment of truth was upon him. This is the response we should, as a society, encourage in him.

hunttheevil
December 8, 2006, 07:34 PM
+1 on the heavy burden. This young man did what he had to do to protect his family. He will definitely need counseling and will spend a long time getting past this experience. I would expect the family to relocate as he will no doubt have fears being in this home.

Jerry Morris
December 8, 2006, 07:43 PM
He did the right thing, but the cigar money would best be spent on counseling, he's got that particular burden on his conscience the rest of his life, and the questions about the incident won't stop until long afterwards.

Counceling? I'd council the kid he does want to go through life cleaning toilet bowls, but he should not be too upset if he has to, now and again!

Some things NEED to be done!

Jerry

MechAg94
December 8, 2006, 08:29 PM
I hope this kids gets the encouragement and support that he needs to reinforce that he did the right thing. There are some idiots out there that would tell him he should feel bad about it.

Do all these shoots have to turn into a big philosophy discussion? :)

Caimlas
December 8, 2006, 08:48 PM
As
claer and "righteous" as this shooting appears to be, something like
this is a heavy burden to bear.

Not as heavy as 6' of dirt.

ChiefThunderstick
December 8, 2006, 09:45 PM
I second the remark about the six feet of dirt. The perps name was Slaughter, talk about poetic justice.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting through closed doors pays off..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!