Graffiti painter killed by homeowner - news story

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nortonics

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
312
Location
Murderapolis
This is a horrible tragedy. Caught wind of this news story that happened yesterday locally here in the Minneapolis area at the local gun shop this morning. Don't get me wrong - I'm a firm believer in the right to carry and posses firearms for personal protection myself, but may it serve as a valuable reminder/lesson to us all that unless we feel a clear and present danger to ours or our families lives that firing upon a person for such an act is most certainly against the law. Obviously the shooting victim is the clear loser in this battle, but I'm certain that the homeowner/occupant that did the shooting had/has no clue what he's in for for the rest of his life, as well as when he inevitably meets his maker. Read on...

Two killed in Minneapolis, one for painting graffiti

Another violent day in Minneapolis.

The first murder took place in south Minneapolis, the second in the northern part of the city.

First the morning murder which is a story where a victim becomes the suspect and a misdemeanor leads to murder.

That's what police are saying happened just after ten this morning in South Minneapolis.

At around 10 a.m. two people were caught red handed spray painting graffiti on the front of a duplex in the 2000 block of east 34th street in south Minneapolis.

The painters were caught by a teen who was in the house and police say he apparently took it upon himself to stop the vandals.

"These two were spray painting the home on 34th street when a person from within the home came out with a gun and fired at least one shot," said Minneapolis Police Officer Ron Reier.
Reier said the shooter was a victim of vandals until he fired his gun.

Neighbors say they were shocked to come home to a crime scene four blocks wide.
"Surprised to see someone shoot someone for doing that," said a neighbor who didn't want to be identified.

The 19-year-old male who was shot was taken to HCMC by the other person who was allegedly spray painting the house. The man died a short time later.

When police came to the house looking for the shooter no one was there.

Just before 6 p.m., police arrested the shooter and identified him as a 17-year-old male.
He is being held at the Hennepin County Jail.

"I do not see or cannot envision any type of situation where spray painting, a misdemeanor crime, would justify the person coming out and using deadly force," Officer Reier said.

Police aren't saying why this house was the target of the graffiti or if the graffiti itself is gang related, but, neighborhood residents are concerned. Especially that area's City Councilman, Gary Schiff. "We are seeing gang activity and seeing gang graffiti," Schiff said.

He planned to meet with members of the community Wednesday night to answer any questions they had about the shooting.

Schiff wanted to be able to tell the residents about the need for a lockdown at South High School Wednesday afternoon. The lockdown happened when police surrounded the home and the area while looking for the shooter. They called for the lockdown because they could not ensure public safety in the area until they gave the all clear. Students at South HS were dismissed at the normal hour Wednesday and neighbors were cleared of the crime tape by late afternoon.

The second killing took place around 7 p.m. Minneapolis Police were dispatched to the 600 block of Thomas Avenue North after 911 calls about multiple gun shots being heard. When officers arrived they found the body of an adult male in the rear of home on the block. He had been shot several times. The unidentified victim was transported to North Memorial Medical Center where he died.

Preliminary information given to police indicates that possibly two shooters fled in a newer model, light colored, vehicle. This vehicle was fleeing northbound in the alley between Thomas and Sheridan Avenues North.

Anyone with any information regarding this murder is asked to call the Minneapolis Police Department's TIPS Line at 612-693-8477.


By Jana Shortal, KARE 11 News
 
I see no problem with the residents actions towards the tresspasser.
 
A lot of missing info here. My first thought was that the taggers and the shooter could be from rival gangs
 
My friend in that neighborhood says it was plain vandalism, interrupted. He hopes it would deter other vandals, but doesn't have much faith in them learning from the experience of others. That neighborshood has had a lot of vandalism, burglaries and arson.
 
If you see no problem with this, then you need a serious attitude adjustment.

If the inappropriateness of this reaction doesn't seem obvious to you, perhaps you would be more impressed with the concept of spending 20 years in jail because you shot someone spraying paint.

Review of Basic Rules:

1. Shoot only if in fear for your life.

2. It will cost you $50,000 to pull the trigger, if everything goes right. If it goes wrong, it may cost most of your life in prison.

(Me? It's not worth $50,000 to prevent spray painting, when that stuff can be removed for $20. It's a basic math problem.)

If one agrees with those to precepts, shooting someone who offers no threat (assuming that was the case in this incident) would be not only illegal, but clearly immoral.
 
I spent a little over 2 grand for a new cedar fence. I imagine if I saw someone destroying that 2 grand fence, I'd react as though it wasn't 'just a misdomener'. Its $2,000 out of my pocket, and I'd feel just the same as if I were robbed.

salty.
 
To add on to my previous post, I see no problem morally.

Legally he is in for a serious raping. If I were on the jury, and the incident was:

Scumbag came onto another mans land, and began vandalizing the place, homeowner comes out and shoots the SOB (whether or not a threat was posed to the owner), homeowner is charged.

Under those circumstances, I would hold out as the lone vote for not-guilty, and either convince the others, or deadlock the thing. I see nothing wrong with such force. For those who ask if I would, only if threatened. Guntalk pretty much summed the reasons why.

Daniel, the answer to your question is yes.

Justin, my thinking is fine. I just have no heart at all for vermin. If you do, thats fine, it is a free country. Just don't let your bleeding heart make snide comments about anothers mental fortitude and prowess.
 
I am not "in the know", but this sounds like it could be gang-related to me.

All parties involved are under the age of 21 (the shooter is 17).

The two were "tagging" the shooters house.

In gang mentality, it would be an insult that would require the "tagged" party to respond or lose "respect".


And now you can see why most gang-bangers don't go to college, get high paying jobs, or grow old.

Like I said, I don't have all the info, but this could be a likely reason.
 
>>I imagine if I saw someone destroying that 2 grand fence, I'd react as though it wasn't 'just a misdomener'.<<



Who will you shoot if the wind blows it down?
 
If a perp does this to a person's property...

at night in Texas, he can legally be shot, you're protecting your property. You can't shoot them in the daylight though. For example, you have your 40,000 dollar custom Harley parked in your driveway and some perp spraypaints it.........what would you do? Call 911?.........chris3

Edited correction.....
 
There is undoubtedly a LOT of missing information here. You MUST assume the what is reported is less than correct or complete, plus it has a bias toward inflaming a story so as to sell newspapers.

I doubt that it was merely a summary execution for the crime of vandalism. It could have been spun as a "hate crime" or gang warfare (regardless of the facts) just as well. Instead, the reporter chose to spin it as "out of control, gun-wielding teenager shoots and kills a grafitti artist."

Remain skeptical.
 
I hate vandals with a passion. They are worse than thieves in my book, at least thieves have some kind of reason for doing what they do, even if it is a bad one. I would have NO PROBLEM if the shooter had beat the unholy hell out of the vandal while awaiting the police that he called before leaving the building.

This has every appearance of being a bad shoot in my opinion. There are a lot of missing facts though. It is quite possible that, when confronted, one of the vandals became violent and was shot in self defense. There dont appear to be any witnesses saying anything to the contrary as yet, so we will have to wait and see.

"I do not see or cannot envision any type of situation where spray painting, a misdemeanor crime, would justify the person coming out and using deadly force," Officer Reier said.

Well Officer Reier, it only took me 5 seconds to come up with such a situation, and I am sure that nearly everyone reading this could come up with one too.
 
If evidence doesn't come out that the guys with the spray cans represented some sort of threat to the life of the guy with the gun this is a bad shoot. There is no way to justify the use of deadly force for this without a corresponding threat of deadly force having been made against they resident.
 
Legally, not too smart to kill someone who is painting graffiti on your house. It SHOULD be legal though.
 
Kids are stupid. When I was 15, I too spray painted a few things. I even got busted for it by the police once.


I should have been killed?
 
Threat to life not only justification to shooting

A few people post on this topic have stated that risk to life is the only justification for responding with deadly force. That may be their personal opnion, or the law in their state. But in many states deadly force can be used to protect against serious bodily harm, too. Posiibly even to protect property.

As others have said there is a lot of missing information with which to make a judgement at this point.

When I was 17 I ran vandals/thiefs from our beach property with a shotgun. They sailed their boat up to our beac and then proceeded to harvest bucket s and buckets of our oysters. I at first confronted them verbally and they laughed. I retrieved the Mossberg 500 and told them to leave. They laughed again. Now there were about 4 adult males and four females. One of them jeerily said, "You're not going to shoot us for taking oysters!"

I replied, "No, you're right, I won't shoot you. But I am counting to ten and then I will shred your pretty sail and then start putting holes in your hull." Eight adults spread across the beach vacated the premises in eaight seconds flat.

What option does a home owner have to deter vandalism and property crime. If you paint over the grafitti they will be back the next day, and the next. If they are so bold as to trespass freely and vandalize your property, how do you know they won't be breaking into your house next or threatening your kids? Do you think the police are even going to respond the same day to a grafitti call?!

While I am not sure that shooting the punks was the best idea in this current situation, I do understand the frustration of the home owners. With the undertanding that grafitti vandals won't stop just because you paint over their tags, what would you do to protect your property both from the tagging and possibly worse violations from increased boldness?
 
Come on, is anyone here seriously advocating the use of deadly force against some kids spray-painting a wall? Hopefully, this is just your typical internet chutzpah. If it's not, I have to agree with Justin - this goes way beyond stupid and immoral.

I guess all I can say to the "murder-the-vandals" crowd is that if YOU actually do it and the dead kid's dad comes and kills you, nobody will be shedding any tears. At least the dad has an established moral leg to stand on... "You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..."

PS: I should also say that we don't know exactly what happened. It's entirely possible that this shooting was legitimate self-defense. Sadly, what is clear is that a number of folks here really do seem to think it's ok to kill somebody for damaging property.
 
Couldn't have called 911?

Couldn't have called the neighbors and organized a group to confront the vandals? (Had that happen to me once, and they were on me in five minutes from two directions)

Couldn't have videotaped it for police to review and prosecute later?

Couldn't have taken photos?

Could have had a gun concealed on person inside the doorway during all these events, so if vandal attempted violence, it could have been dealt with?

Sounds to me like the 17-year old didn't have much better sense or self control than the vandal. But I don't have all the facts, so hard to say.

jmm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top