Their friends claim this was overkill. What do you think?

[Blimey]

So hypothetically 16 y/o and his younger brother take upon themselves to rob someone. Older brother pulls gun (for the sake of argument let's say younger kid didn't know about) and is dropped by intended victim. Younger kid stops dead in his tracks puts his hands above his head and says OMG you killed my brother. Do you put two in his chest or yell commands to have him get on ground etc?

I'm not defending the kids actions or saying the shooting was not justified, just that more info is needed before forming an opinion. Kids do stupid stuff (some alot worse than others) but they are still kids. Just saying...

That's all possible.

It's also highly unlikely. Unless something along those lines comes out, it looks to me and most here that these "kids" were armed, violent felons who attempted to use lethal force to commit a crime--something real kids don't, but morally bankrupt predators, do.

 

[cgrutt]

That's all possible.

It's also highly unlikely. Unless something along those lines comes out, it looks to me and most here that these "kids" were armed, violent felons who attempted to use lethal force to commit a crime--something real kids don't, but morally bankrupt predators, do.

Sure that's possible too. All conjecture but certainly possible...

FWIW I added the hypothetical in response to @Doc8404 comment that he would be good with shoot as long as it wasnt in back. Has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Celt]

So hypothetically 16 y/o and his younger brother take upon themselves to rob someone. Older brother pulls gun (for the sake of argument let's say younger kid didn't know about) and is dropped by intended victim. Younger kid stops dead in his tracks puts his hands above his head and says OMG you killed my brother. Do you put two in his chest or yell commands to have him get on ground etc?..

In this case, you dont shoot the kid surrendering.

As you said above, you shoot to stop the threat. My understanding was all three were threatening violence with lethal force. If any of them werent then that would be an issue.

 

[Phauxtoe]

shoot until the threat is NO longer a threat!
Did i see a twitch?

 

[cgrutt]

I must have read different article lol. What I understood from article was three masked teens tried to rob three (presumably) adults. One teen pulled a gun and fired and was killed along with two other accomplices by one of the intended victims. IMO not enough info to form an opinion one way or the other lol...

 

[GOPerfect]

I must have read different article lol. What I understood from article was three masked teens tried to rob three (presumably) adults. One teen pulled a gun and fired and was killed along with two other accomplices by one of the intended victims. IMO not enough info to form an opinion one way or the other lol...

Me, I have enough info...

Three masked scum bags showed up to rob innocent people. They are dead. All good!

 

[Doc8404]

4am.
Wearing masks.
Sorry.
Stupid games.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Three on one sounds like overkill to me in the first instance.

 

[cgrutt]

Well, three on three lol. At least according to article...

 

[BDinPutnam]

Ah gotta go read the article, I had only seen a synopsis online elsewhere.

 

[Toecutter]

Seems like he saved taxpayers alot of money.

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

Three guys approaching wearing masks at 4am armed. Somebody is going to die. The guys wearing masks and carrying guns are already one step ahead of you and demonstrate commitment to their plan with every step they take in the approach. They have come prepared to take your life along with your possessions.

Who gets to call a timeout?/suspend play?

 

[repete]

In this case, you dont shoot the kid surrendering.

As you said above, you shoot to stop the threat. My understanding was all three were threatening violence with lethal force. If any of them werent then that would be an issue.

I agree but in the heat of the moment it sure would be difficult to not shoot one of the three that's not a direct threat at that moment.

 

[Saltwater60]

I have zero problems with this. A bullet fired from a 15 or 16 year old will kill you just as fast as one from a 30 year old.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

The outcome seems fine to me. Show up in disguise, while armed, and shoot at me? Seriously? You had better be prepared to receive some return fire!

What I would wonder about is this: the homeowner has No Trespassing signs prominently posted. Why? Have there been a bunch of prior incidents there? Break ins? Assaults? Robberies? Just asking...

Also, who hangs out on your front porch at 4AM with firearm(s)? Was the homeowner expecting trouble? If so, would that be considered something more than just standing your ground? Or, was it just a case of him preferring to relax on his front porch at an unusual hour, while armed (naturally), just enjoying the fresh night air, or perhaps a smoke? Maybe his AC was broken? Or maybe he hadn’t paid his electric bill, who knows?

 

[Grimscale]

I'm not defending the kids actions or saying the shooting was not justified, just that more info is needed before forming an opinion.

That's a noble way to look at it. Wait for more information.

But until then, I'm going to do something our Court system and most politicians nowadays have forgotten how to do.
I'm going to err on the side of the person defending themselves. I still believe in the principle of "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

 

[cgrutt]

That's a noble way to look at it. Wait for more information.

But until then, I'm going to do something our Court system and most politicians nowadays have forgotten how to do.
I'm going to err on the side of the person defending themselves. I still believe in the principle of "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Article made no mention of charges being filed against the intended victim. Had any of the kids survived they would have been charged. Seems most here have already presumed kids guilty and handed down death warrant when fact of the matter is none of us know what went down there. Got everything from they were armed with intent to commit deadly force, to kids being violent felons to disparity of force. All article stated was three kids wearing masks one had a gun and fired. Three intended victims at least one of whom returned fire killing the three kids. I have no problem with outcome here if warranted but suspect there's alot more to the story than we've been told (or assumed lol). You guys are funny...

 

[MoMan]

from article was three masked teens tried to rob three (presumably) adults.

ALL 3 were wearing masks, ALL 3 were involved in the violence against the victims, ALL 3 paid for their stupidity!! Yea, I'm all good with that.

One teen pulled a gun and fired and was killed along with two other accomplices

I wish they would quit referring to them as 'teens', like that should make any difference when someone pulls a handgun out, and starts shooting.
WELLLLL, if he wasn't wearing that mask, I would have known he was 'just a teen', and wouldn't have shot him. Fuck that. they made a choice, and suffered the consequences of their actions.

 

[cgrutt]

ALL 3 were wearing masks, ALL 3 were involved in the violence against the victims, ALL 3 paid for their stupidity!! Yea, I'm all good with that.


I wish they would quit referring to them as 'teens', like that should make any difference when someone pulls a handgun out, and starts shooting.
WELLLLL, if he wasn't wearing that mask, I would have known he was 'just a teen', and wouldn't have shot him. Fuck that. they made a choice, and suffered the consequences of their actions.

Zero issue with kid that pulled gun I suspect the other two weren't armed as there was no mention of additional guns. Dont necessarily have a problem with the other two either just would like more info before arriving at any conclusions. If they weren't armed and ceased engaging in any threatening behavior after their accomplice was shot I'd have a problem with that. BTW I agree with the whole bullet from 12 y/o is just as deadly as one from a 30 y/o thing but it falls apart if they are not armed. Article only said one gun that's all I've got. As stated numerous times not enough info to form an opinion.

 

[MoMan]

The problem for me is that ALL 3 were wearing masks, they had at least 1 gun, which was fired upon the guy. I'm thinking he was going to defend himself, and with the adrenaline pouring through his body at that time, he shot until the threat was over. REMEMBER this did take place in Georgia, which nas both the 'Castle doctrine', and 'Stand Your Ground' laws. This would explain why the guy wasn't charged.

Down here, if 2 criminals kick in your door, and you shoot and kill 1, and the other 1 is arrested, the 2nd criminal is charged with murder because a death occurred in the commission of a crime that he was involved in. Seems pretty fair to me. It actually happened a couple of counties over from us since we've been down here. It was around Christmas, 2 guys kicked in the door of a house, the homeowner shot them both, 1 died in the driveway, and the other was wounded, and laying in the driveway when police arrived. About 6 months later I saw where the 2nd guy survived, and was released from the hospital, and immediately charged with murder.

 

[GoodGuywitha9mm]

No matter what age a person is, once they put on a mask to hide their identity to commit a crime, all rules go out the window.

Surprised they didn't call "time out" or "safe!"

 

[spat]

I agree but in the heat of the moment it sure would be difficult to not shoot one of the three that's not a direct threat at that moment.

Technically the one surrendering just committed murder (when his friend died, felony murder rule, at least in some states).

Now, I will agree that you don't shoot someone who is genuinely surrendering, but in a case like this they'd better be very clearly and unambiguously no longer a threat. I bet that's pretty hard to do in a chaotic situation like a firefight.

 

[CaliberPlus]

I searched this a bit to see what, if anything new, the NYT article really takes the cake. One of the teens fired but did not hit anyone, blah, blah blah. Like that excuses it!?

Ok, according to the newer articles, one boy fifteen, two were sixteen. Who did they steal the Glock from? Was there more than one gun? They all were blocking their faces. Any self respecting teen I know is not up at 4 AM. Teens being teens, I bet the gun was shown off before the robbery attempt. Maybe not, but at that age, you either know robbery is wrong or it is a way of life.

 

[Cleck]

So hypothetically 16 y/o and his younger brother take upon themselves to rob someone. Older brother pulls gun (for the sake of argument let's say younger kid didn't know about) and is dropped by intended victim. Younger kid stops dead in his tracks puts his hands above his head and says OMG you killed my brother. Do you put two in his chest or yell commands to have him get on ground etc?

I'm not defending the kids actions or saying the shooting was not justified, just that more info is needed before forming an opinion. Kids do stupid stuff (some alot worse than others) but they are still kids. Just saying...

If he puts his hands up, I don't care what he says after that, the threat is over and he has given up. Order him on the ground and call the police.

 

[Steve F]

The homeowner was shot at first and then returned fire. Georgia homeowner fatally shoots 3 masked teens allegedly trying to rob him

Um...they SHOT AT HIM. Seriously?! I have no problem with returning fire. If the defensive fire is delivered with superior marksmanship, so much the better.

I have an idea. You don't want to get shot, don't go around shooting at people. Some of them will not be defenseless.