13-Year-Old Suspect Killed In Armed Robbery Attempt

[Owen Sparks]

If a child shoots you, you are just as shot even if the law does not hold children responsible for their actions. You have to think objectivly in a fight and not let your emotions cloud your judgement. When someone points a gun at you your objective is to survive.

 

[highlander 5]

Another case of play stupid games,win stupid prizes. It's unfortunate that a 13 yr old lost his life but on the other hand cases like theis one may make the next 13 yr old Dillinger think twice about pulling an armed robbery. I feel for the guy who shot him,he going thru the rest of his life knowing that he took the life of a child.

 

[Ryanxia]

It's really too bad but like others have said, this has nothing to do with property and everything to do with being in the vehicle during the attempted robbery and the criminal having a GUN.

 

[barstoolguru]

I agree with some of the other posters in that age has nothing to do with it.
If he would have shot the victim would everyone feel the same...NO.? The kid would have got out at the age of 18 and been a better criminal

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JColdIron: Pointing a gun at someone is serious business and should be treated as such. .... They have already signaled to me that they are willing to kill by pointing the gun at me.

One cannot reasonably disagree with that.

Based on what we can know from the report, and if the report is true, there can be no question at all about justification in this case. By all indications, the tragic aspects aside, the defender was justified.

Anyone faced with this has to make the decision on their own.

That's very true.

For me, as harsh as it may sound, it would not be a decision of morality, nor would the age of the armed robber enter into it. Rather, it would boil down to whether I believed that my safety would more likely be preserved by the immediate use of deadly force, or that turning to the weapon would be more likely to lead to my being killed or injured by a weapons discharge that would not have occurred but for my action.

In that assessment, it really comes down to whether the opportunity to fire effectively and rapidly enough presents itself timely. In the incident at hand, it would appear that the defender saw and took an opportunity to defend himself and his spouse. In any event, he was successful. One might surmise that the defender, having his firearm with him in the automobile, was able to make ready and use his firearm without telegraphing his intention to the robber.

A robber pointing a firearm directly at a standing victim whose hands can be seen and whose firearm is holstered would present a somewhat different tactical scenario.

One thing that has to enter into the decision process is something that seems to be little understood. For whatever reason, and I happen to think that exposure to screen fiction may have a lot to do with it, a substantial number of people seem to have the impression that the proverbial "well placed" shot from a handgun will drop an attacker effectively before he can fire.

That is true--some of the time. It worked in the incident under discussion here, but one, two, or even more handgun shots may leave the attacker with at least enough ability to empty his own gun.

Just one more thing to weigh in the decision process....

 

[sonick808]

According to quite a few sociologists and data mining types, teens (and perhaps even pre-teens) these days are more likely to take your life than the adults. I will do everything in my power to escape, avoid or flee; but if I have to defend myself then I make no distinctions regarding age.

 

[ChCx2744]

Here's how I see it: 13 years old, 23 years old, 63 years old, 83 years old...My next point is often repeated and moot, but if it's not understood, I'll make it understood again. Regardless of age, physical size, ability, gender or demeaner, if you are armed with what *SEEMS* like a weapon that could inflict great bodily harm or death and *SEEM* like you are threatening me with it, you are nothing more than a threat. A threat will be dealt with accordingly, on spot, immediately. I do not care what your intent is, nor do I care for your motive. Threaten my life and I will react violently.

 

[7.62 Nato]

Age doesn't matter. "At the time he had the gun pointed at me he looked 45. But it turned out to be 9mm."

 

[newbuckeye]

As for size, I have a 13 YO step son that was taken for being 20 the other day, and he is the younger of the two.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ChCx2744:... if you are armed with what *SEEMS* like a weapon that could inflict great bodily harm or death and *SEEM* like you are threatening me with it, you are nothing more than a threat.

Just to tighten down the terminology a little, the threshold for lawful justification is a reasonable belief that the individual presents an imminent threat.

A threat will be dealt with accordingly, on spot, immediately. I do not care what your intent is, nor do I care for your motive. Threaten my life and I will react violently.

Assuming that the question of lawful justification has been answered, there is the tactical question: can you in fact "react violently" without setting off a chain of events that may end your life?

If your firearm can be made ready without your action being detected by your attacker, and if you can shoot and place shots effectively enough to stop him before he fires, you have a chance.

If not, you had better be able to judge his motive with some degree of confidence.

 

[Cosmoline]

The robbery has nothing to do with it. The threat of imminent, unlawful deadly force is the issue. The car is irrelevant. It has no bearing on anything. What's important is the brandishing of the firearm, the unlawful use, and the imminent threat.

The car should not even enter your thinking, one way or the other, except to the extent it could be used tactically to help you survive.

Criminals routinely kill witnesses, so expecting "your money or your life" to be a binding contract is incredibly stupid.

 

[ChCx2744]

Kleanbore said:

Just to tighten down the terminology a little, the threshold for lawful justification is a reasonable belief that the individual presents an imminent threat.

Again, if I (a prudent, reasonable and law-abiding citizen) percieve a threat to my life, they are no longer a person who holds a title, age, history, merit or the right to my benefit of the doubt. They are nothing more than a threat. The first time I decided to purchase and train with a gun, I made a vow to myself that I am willing to carry, practice with, maintain and utilize it to my fullest capacity to neutralize such threats. Honestly, the "threshold for lawful justification" at which I can defend myself from a life threatening situation is not pertinent to me at that moment; articulation of such will come later in court. I carry in areas that allow me to do so and do not in areas that do not. In both areas, I am willing to use deadly force to defend myself, whether it is with my hands or with a gun.

With all due respect, what exactly are you trying to point out about my post? I don't understand what you mean by "tighten down the terminology." Were you trying to re-word what I wrote to simplify it for other readers, or did what I post make you uncomfortable to the point where you felt as if you needed to correct me? I apologize if what I said causes any confusion, but I think I made myself pretty clear.

Kleanbore said:

Assuming that the question of lawful justification has been answered, there is the tactical question: can you in fact "react violently" without setting off a chain of events that may end your life?

I am reasonably confident in my abilities on handling high stress situations like this. I have a background in law enforcement and have been in such situations (I.E. foot pursuits of armed subjects, high speed vehicle pursuits, clearing trap houses frequented by armed, violent offenders). If the assailant is quicker on the draw or gets the drop on me through an ambush, then there's nothing I can do to defend myself against such incidents. I practice situational awareness and stay away from places I don't need to be, but no matter how safe I try to be, the threat is always out there. I don't have eyes behind my head and no single person can always watch their backs like that. You can train your whole life and run every possible scenario you think of, but things can always go wrong. So to answer your question, yes, I can in fact react as violently as I need to in order to consolodate my chances for survival, as opposed to just sitting there like a damn goose egg waiting to die.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Honestly, the "threshold for lawful justification" at which I can defend myself from a life threatening situation is not pertinent to me at that moment; articulation of such will come later in court.

This is undeniably true.

Again, if I (a prudent, reasonable and law-abiding citizen) percieve a threat to my life...

Once you have used lethal force, the determination of whether you are a prudent, reasonable and law-abiding person shifts from your say-so and previous fact, to a prosecutor and maybe a jury. As you said, that will be the time for your articulation.

However, prosecutors and juries tend to go with established standards for what constitutes a reasonably percieved, immediate (and, absent SYG, otherwise unavoidable) lethal threat. Obviously, an articulation of "I perceived a threat to my life, and I am reasonable, prudent and law-abiding" won't cut it. You'll have to describe what you perceived and why you interpreted that as requiring lethal force.

And then someone else, following pre-existing guidelines, will decide if your perception and your interpretation were reasonable and prudent. I personally don't think it's any "dis" to you to point out what those pre-existing standards are, and I didn't read it that way.

A person's confidence that he was reasonable, prudent, law-abiding and justified is not, in itself, a bar to conviction.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posed by ChCx2744: With all due respect, what exactly are you trying to point out about my post? I don't understand what you mean by "tighten down the terminology." Were you trying to re-word what I wrote to simplify it for other readers, or did what I post make you uncomfortable to the point where you felt as if you needed to correct me?

Thanks for asking.

The answer is, the former. Actually, it was to clarify it for other readers. Taking your post on the whole, I saw no reason to conclude that you misunderstood the threshold for justification. I do presume that you agree with the reply from Loosedhorse.

We haven't seen that much of it lately, but there seems to be a fair number of people who will define someone as a "threat" because that someone has made threatening gestures, threatened non-deadly force, walked in the same direction behind thm in the evening, and so forth--and will believe that the existence of such a "threat" justifies their use of a firearm, when it does not.

What people perceive as a "threat" seems to vary. I'm sure you are aware that one may not use or threaten deadly force simply because someone seems to constitute a "threat"--the threat must be imminent, and it must be one involving death or serious bodily harm, and the defender must reasonably believe that the use of such force to be immediately necessary.

Not everyone understands that.

Regarding my comment about the threshold for lawful justification, my point was, once that is not in question, is it tactically prudent to "react violently", or not?

That will be highly dependent upon the situation. If the attacker has the drop on you, and he can see your hands, and your firearm is not in your hand, do you really want to reach for your firearm, draw it, try to shoot him shoot him, and count on the immediate effectiveness of your shots to prevent him from pulling the trigger before he does so?

Depending upon your assessment of his motive, that may be the only thing to do--or it might prove fatal to you. It's a decision that you have to make.

If you are in your car, and he cannot see your hands, and you can bring your firearm into play without attracting his attention, the odds would be much more favorable to you.

 

[Old Fuff]

I see in this afternoon's news that a ICE Agent in California was shot and killed, and the principal suspect is his own 14-year-old son. Authorities stated that the cause/motive might be a "domestic dispute."

Tragic? Absolutely! But it is not wrong or out of line for this thread to consider the issue.

 

[1911Tuner]

From observations, the 12-15 year olds are even more dangerous and unpredictable than the older, more experienced thugs. They know that the law is more lenient on juveniles than those who are eligible for big boys' prison, and because they want to earn their "creds" in order to impress the career gangsters.

As has been noted many times, a 12 year-old can kill you just as dead as a full-grown man...and he is probably more likely to pull that trigger on a whim.

 

[Cosmoline]

Honestly, the "threshold for lawful justification" at which I can defend myself from a life threatening situation is not pertinent to me at that moment

It's the single most important issue, and everyone who carries should know the pertinent code provisions and case law. In general terms you must be facing an *imminent* threat of *deadly* (or sufficiently grave) force that is *unlawful*. There may or may not be alterations to this under some circumstances under state law. The castle doctrine for example may permit the presumption that the intruder to a home is presenting the imminent threat of deadly force. Another factor that varies from state to state is the level of serious bodily harm threatened short of death that will permit deadly force in self defense. Imminence is also a frequent pitfall. If I'm armed and threaten to push you off a cliff next week, you're probably not going to be justified in shooting me right there.

Knowledge of these legal issues is incredibly important. Gut instinct and common sense are fine, but they can lead us to use excessive force or falsely believe we are barred from using it.

 

[Pilot]

I am hopeful his buddies back in the hood realize his outcome of committing violent crime. Maybe middle age, middle class people will not be seen as such soft targets, and easy prey if the word gets out.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The robbery has nothing to do with it. The threat of imminent, unlawful deadly force is the issue.

Right, and people frequently do not understand at at the point and time in which the intended victim was threatened with serious bodily harm or death, the aspect of it being a robbery isn't salient. At that point, the robbery is simply the reason when the gunkid was their and showing intent, opportunity, and ability to inflict lethal force. For the intended victim, the notion of the robbery is really ancient history at that point.

I am hopeful his buddies back in the hood realize his outcome of committing violent crime. Maybe middle age, middle class people will not be seen as such soft targets, and easy prey if the word gets out.

There appears to be no indication that folks are getting that message at any sort of level that is causing them to stop trying such illegal acts. If anything, his buddies will be telling each other not to screw up like the dead kid did when they commit future crimes. The lesson isn't to not break the law, but to not screw up when doing it.

 

[EvilGenius]

There appears to be no indication that folks are getting that message at any sort of level that is causing them to stop trying such illegal acts. If anything, his buddies will be telling each other not to screw up like the dead kid did when they commit future crimes. The lesson isn't to not break the law, but to not screw up when doing it.

This, they follow a belief system that justifies their way of life. You cannot in any way shape or form change someone's beliefs unless they want them to be changed.

Beliefs will not change, tactics will.

 

[ChCx2744]

Cosmoline said:

It's the single most important issue, and everyone who carries should know the pertinent code provisions and case law. In general terms you must be facing an *imminent* threat of *deadly* (or sufficiently grave) force that is *unlawful*. There may or may not be alterations to this under some circumstances under state law. The castle doctrine for example may permit the presumption that the intruder to a home is presenting the imminent threat of deadly force. Another factor that varies from state to state is the level of serious bodily harm threatened short of death that will permit deadly force in self defense. Imminence is also a frequent pitfall. If I'm armed and threaten to push you off a cliff next week, you're probably not going to be justified in shooting me right there.

Knowledge of these legal issues is incredibly important. Gut instinct and common sense are fine, but they can lead us to use excessive force or falsely believe we are barred from using it.

I hate to stray even further from the original article or post, but something must be pointed out. There really is not a fine line between a perceived imminent threat (I.E. a criminal pointing a gun at you) as opposed to them holding you at knife point or just brandishing the gun (I.E. has it in his hands, but his finger is off the trigger and not pointed at you or he just flashes it in his waistband with his hand on it). Both situations present the same imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, but the latter will only be the case if he got the drop on me.

The variable we must include here is setting. The setting will play a huge role on how I will react and if I'll even be able to react at all. In my case, the only time this will be the case is if I'm walking to and from my car to and from work, from home, from the store and at the drive thru ATM. For discussion sake, we're going to go along with the scenario presented in the article and just assume that this is happening as I am coming home from wherever, when I am armed. It is 11:10pm at night, therefore it is darker than hell's armpit. In this situation, my alertness is way up. It is dark, I am single and I'm usually the only one in the house at that time. If I notice any movement, let alone a person around me, my hand is definitely free and ready. Not only that, the article states that the suspect approached the man while he was still inside his car. If I am in my car and someone approaches me that I do not know, especially at night in my own driveway, my gun is already out. If at that point I see a gun-like object pointed at me (The victim in the story said he saw a gun that was cocked) the following could happen:

1) I shoot, land some hits and goes down.
2) I shoot, land some hits and he runs away.
3) I shoot, land some hits, he doesn't run or drop and shoots back. We pretty much get into a shootout right there in my driveway.
4) He just appears out of my blind spot or the darkness and starts shooting without saying anything. I may or may not be able to return fire, depending on how fast he is, how good of a shot he is, where his shots land on me and how many times I get hit.

What is most likely to happen? Probably #1 and #2 is a close second. #3 is also very likely to happen, which would suck, because I can't really go anywhere but he can move around. Only thing I could really do in situation #3 is stay low or cross over to the passenger side, exit and play cat and mouse. #4 seems unlikely, but I could be really tired, it could be raining, he could be really good at hiding or wearing some crazy camo outfit, who knows. I pretty much stay alert when coming home and keep my head on a swivel to prevent things like #3 and #4.

But again, you never know what is waiting for you anywhere you go. Do freak occurrences happen? Sure. A mob of 4 thugs with automatic rifles could be waiting for you to pull in, thinking you are a rival drug dealer that actually lives a couple houses down but they don't know that. A damn inert satellite could fall out of the sky onto your head. A large bird could suddenly die while in mid-flight, fall onto your head beak first and stab your brain. Anything can happen. If it's your time, it's your time. Sometimes you can't protect yourself from everything, but you sure as hell can be prepared to do something against 2-legged critters who want to obstruct your social agenda.

 

[SimplyChad]

Where was the car owners gun being stored? If i read all this correctly the kid got the drop on him dead to rights. I had a similar confrontation when I first started carrying. No one died but someone might have if i didnt have my gun in my lap. (We had been hiking and it rubbed my belly raw)

 

[tipoc]

Where was the car owners gun being stored? If i read all this correctly the kid got the drop on him dead to rights. I had a similar confrontation when I first started carrying. No one died but someone might have if i didnt have my gun in my lap. (We had been hiking and it rubbed my belly raw)

We don't have that information. I think the general point of the op was that a 13 year old was involved. The specifics of the incident are a bit vague.

tipoc

 

[SimplyChad]

13 or 30 this person knowingly placed himself in this situation. Knowing how the weapon was carried or stored could hold vital info on saving innocent lives in the future. A childs deaths is no careless matter but if this was a 30 yr old 2 time convicted felon would you feel the same. Last time I checked this was a forum on tactics and strategies. Whatever the person in the car's strategy was it work so I want to know it. I can remember where its from or who said it but "take advice from surviviors they lived to tell the tale".

 

[FourTeeFive]

You seem to be implying that in a robbery, your only option is to shoot it out--that you've already decided. For some, depending on the circumstance and "read", letting the robber have the propery might be the better option.

Up to you.

Robbery or whatever the crime, if someone is threatening my life THEY have already decided to risk their own life. If it is obvious they are threatening me with deadly force, and I am armed with a gun, then they have given me no choice but to shoot. I'm not sure how this situation can be construed any other way, or how you can train for any other outcome. It is their poor choice that lead to their own demise.