jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The father should be tried for manslaughter.
The 16 year old is guilty of being 16, and grounded for a month.
The 17 year old, also guilty of being 17, should be home, alive, scared after her father chased him out.
Not shot.
Spin this anyway you like. It's bullshit.
As I read the statute for second degree murder, once she told daddy she did not know the boy, she became culpable if he ended up harmed in any way.
Now the first thing daddy did was call 911, and was detaining the "intruder" when the discussion turned into an argument. So far, there is no justification for shooting the boy, agree? Hell there is no justification for beating the shit out of him with a golf club for that matter.
So you now have one pissed off father who is going under the information given him by his "innocent" daughter, who, according to the investigators on the case, and the authorities speaking to reporters, admitted to telling her father she did not know the young man.
Now, what do you base your opinion on that she is just guilty of being 16?
Her actions either directly or indirectly led to the death of a young man, who, for all intents and purposes was making a perfectly legal (under Texas statutory rape law) booty call.
Even with all the other factors, her inviting him over, him being in her room at 230 in the morning, there was no justification for the shooting.
It was only after she said she did not know the young man did the possible use of deadly force become justified under Texas law. Sorry but that is the way the law is written, and it is your basic "castle doctrine" based law concerning defending home and family.
Add to that, there is a "heat of passion" rider to the law, which all the defense has to prove was that he was either angry beyond the ability to control his actions, and he walks.
The same is true if a man came home and found his wife in bed with another man. If he kills her or her lover alone, it becomes second degree murder, or in the very least manslaughter. If both are killed, it is "in the heat of passion" and he is not guilty. The same is true for a woman coming home to find her husband in bed with another woman.
The simple fact is that when she lied, while they were waiting for cops to arrive, and he dropped his hand, the 55 year old man pulled the trigger, during a heated argument.
Should the 17 year old boy be dead, hell no. I never said he should be.
And the legal experts all agree that under the information he had at the time, there is no way he can be indicted, and if he is, the chance of a conviction is slim to some astronomically high number of less value than zero.
Need to point out to those blaming his parents about him running the streets at 230 in the morning, they believed that the young man was in New Orleans for spring break, and therefore not in town. It is kinda hard to control a teenager when you think he is out of town.
Does a 16 year old have the authority to invite someone over without the knowledge of her parents, no.
Sorry but as a minor, parents have final say on who and when someone can visit the teenager.
So we have the following facts.
1) Due to the one year age difference between her and him, the sex act would have been consensual, under the law.
2) The girl invited a boy over to her home at 2:30 in the morning, brought him into the house and her bedroom.
3) Little brother say the teens feet under the bed and told daddy, (what the fuck was little brother doing up at 230 in the morning.)
4) Daddy investigates and upon discovering the boy, dialed 911, after his daughter told him she did not know the teen.
5) While waiting for police, father, teen and daughter are in an argument concerning just what the hell was going on, daughter claiming she did not know the boy, boy claiming she is not telling the truth, probably very loudly and using some very colorful language to describe the girl that has her father pissed off and holding a gun on him, and daddy trying to figure out who is telling the truth.
6) Boy drops his hands/arms and dad pulls the trigger.
So in the end the fact is that a 17 year old is dead, daddy killed him going by what the daughter told him (as confirmed by the authorities) and the daughter is more than a little responsible.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Another shooting of an unarmed teen... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread