Police: Driver Kills Boy Who Threw Egg At Vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
These kids chose to have fun by messing with total strangers without any thought to the consequences.

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

Both me and my boyfriend got hit by this.

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

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

The kid was taken out by Darwin. Bravo. Maybe his death will teach a lesson to kids not to pull this kind of crap.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The shooter goes to jail. The kid's dead. Who won? No one. And we lose too, every time someone uses a gun irresponsibly.
 
Can you possibly show us a circumstance in which the throwing of eggs would constitute a legitimate use of lethal force?

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

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

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

I'll repeat for the fourth time to head off yet another statement claiming I said something I didn't or am defending the shooters decision, from what we know it was a bad shoot. No proof yet however that this was in fact premeditated murder.
 
You can bold that part all you want. The fact is that the INFORMATION in the article, when TAKEN on FACE VALUE, indicates that the kids were the ones who told the debuties this, otherwise why isn't there a quote from a witness besides the kids?
It IMPLIES, it does not INDICATE.

To garner information from an implication requires an assumption.

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

How very High Road of you.

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

I've said it's very likely a bad shoot. I have said that we don't have enough information to declare this a case of premeditated murder. Which is it you have such a problem with? And why?
 
Well, let's see...eggs, patatoes, snowballs, tomatoes, water bombs, yogurt, rocks,..... I would have been dead so many times :eek:

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

I hope the idiot gets the maximum penalty possible. There's no excuse in killing a kid over an egg. :cuss:
 
I have said that we don't have enough information to declare this a case of premeditated murder.
1. All we have is the article.
2. The article says he left the scene and returned.
3. It says it twice.
4. One time it quotes the investigating officers as saying that.
5. The second time it quotes a witness as saying it.
6. If he left the scene and returned it is premeditated murder.
7. Therefore, based on the information in the article, the murder was premeditated.

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

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

For the record, I have never in my life ATTEMPTED to insult anyone. Trust me. ;)
 
Actually, unless the "witness" followed the shooter home, there is no way for them to know what happened once the shooter left. The most they could know is that the person left and had a gun upon return. The shooter might have had the gun the first time.

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

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

Kj

ps- sorry I forgot to throw in the accusation that something someone said was "not particularly High Road" of them, but I am not feeling particularly pompous today.
 
Kjervin said:
He may...
He may have done a lot of things. All we can go by is what the article said.
it is not correct to say that the facts lead solely to premeditated murder
At the risk of being repetitive, we don't know the facts--all we know is what the article says.

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

Leaving and returning is what makes it premeditated.
 
John, the "witness" was engaging in the crime that reportedly prompted the shooter to commit the act. Harldy an impartial observer. Sounds like a lot of assumption going on here. We may never know unless the guy is caught.
 
1. All we have is the article.

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that?

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

Really?

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

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

JohnKSa said:
Its' been fun, but no more parsing/logic lessons for you--at least not from me.
 
Leaving and returning is what makes it premeditated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice rhetoric. The only argument we've made that you list is that a premeditated murder accusation is premature based on the article. As for the rest, stop putting words in other peopls mouths, or prove someone you are arguing with actually stated anything you quoted.
 
All I am saying is that all the necessary elements of premeditation are not there. Even stipulating that he came back, it does not mean he came back with the intent to murder. Or that he selected an individual to murder (ie. versus firing into a crowd which is generally not viewed as premeditated murder). We (and by we I mean myself and any who choose to agree) are not arguing specifically whether he left and came back, but rather that returning to the scene, while it might make you guilty of something, does not in and of itself make it premeditated murder, even if one thinks it should. Other elements are required.
Sound good? Good.
Kj
 
Ok, so the witnesses are unreliable. How unreliable? Evidently just unreliable enough that you'd question whether or not the man actually left the scene or not, but not unreliable enough so that you'd question whether there even was a man. Right? Ok...
As for the rest, stop putting words in other peopls mouths, or prove someone you are arguing with actually stated anything you quoted
This coming from a guy who's busy rearranging eye-witness stories to match his conclusions. :rolleyes:

Kjervin,

That's something of a stretch, IMO. Perhaps enough to raise a reasonable doubt, but it would certainly be an uphill argument.
 
Around here a pickup truck is synonymous with idiot. They've overtaken SUV drivers many times over as the idiots of the road. Just today I was cut off by another pickup driver weaving in and out of a construction zone.
 
Hehe, the one-armed man shot the boys, I swear. How do we even know there was a guy? It's an interesting point. These kids were engaging in vandalism and assault, by their admission, so their credibility is...yup, you guess it, ZERO.

Now, if/when the police find this evasive bandit, we'll know more and we can make some decent conclusions, until then, this is all just theorycraft.
 
The most they could know is that the person left and had a gun upon return.

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

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

"scaring people" by firing a weapon at them, or even by brandishing, is a felony, if you kill someone in the course of commiting a felony that is first degree murder regardless of premeditation.
 
This coming from a guy who's busy rearranging eye-witness stories to match his conclusions.

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

It's a bit hard to rearrange ONE eyewitness account in a story. You've claimed I did, go ahead and prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top