Columbus Ohio area man shoots trespassing teen

[Kentak]

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]

What the heck kind of haircut is that?

BOWL CUT!!!

 

[Redneck with a 40]

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!

 

[c_yeager]

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]

This guy was described as a 40yo non-fiction writer? Well, in his mind, those things he was writing about were real...

 

[evan price]

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]

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.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

he

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ccwolff]

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]

well thats nails it

anyone who would walk around with a haircut like that deserves a life sentence...did the girl die??