|
jlf1961 -> RE: Another shooting of an unarmed teen... (3/18/2014 6:49:08 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
This sounds like an open and shut case of murder or manslaughter with a deadly weapon. I'm a bit surprise those defending the father in this case really do not understand all the facts and psychology on display here. They see 'he as a gun' and 'must defend even to the most retarded level of circumstances'. So lets break this down:
A ) A teenager is shout to death for what? "The father told deputies that McCormick dropped his hands as if to grab something, so the man opened fire. The teen died at the scene." Wow, that's pretty convenient excuse. An were there any weapons on the teenager? No, of course not, it would have been justified on the part of the parent, right?
B ) Teenagers do dumb things often. Go onto Youtube.com and look up the hundreds of thousands of videos of teenagers doing dumb things that usually get them a 'free trip to the ER'. We were all teenagers at one time, and I'm sure we all did some pretty dumb stuff. Would we have done the same things at our current ages? NO. Why? Well, that's were neuroscience comes in. The human brain in the teenage years is not fully developed. It will not be fully develop until they are in their early thirties. Which is *WHY* adults usually don't do stupid things that teenagers do. We racked it up to 'experience', 'age', and 'wisdom'. No, its just our brains finally developing.
So the girl is on the spot and KNOWS she is grounded until she's 18 (and maybe beyond). So she blurts out the first thing that comes to mind. Not really intelligent or wise, right? The boy is equally 'up the river without a paddle' for finding the right words to handle the shitstorm falling on him in a diplomatic manner. Their teenagers, with raging hormones and foolish understanding of 'cause and effect'. Why do we have teenagers that get pregnant? Same thinking....
C ) The father becomes very angry about the situation. His daughter lying and this kid pulling moves on his baby daughter. However, when your a GUN OWNER, you have an even BIGGER responsibility to USE YOUR FIREARM RESPONSIBILITY. When anger became blind rage, he LOST CONTROL OF THE SITUATION. So what is 'blind rage' in medicine? Its when the front half of the brain (which controls reasoning, thinking, rationalizing, and even staying calm in a shitstorm) shuts down and forces the back half of the brain to do double duty (it controls mood, attitudes, and emotions). So the brain is already angry, but the back half of the brain does not have access to the tools/abilities of the front half. So he felt threaten, but could not determine the tactical situation (because that's covered under the front half, right?). His answer? Whip out his firearm and blast the kid at point blank range in a fit of rage.
D ) The father, KNOWS he's...SHIT UP THE RIVER. He's the father of the household. He's a gun owner. And he should know his daughter will do foolish things from time to time, because that's what teenagers do. It was his responsibility to remain in control of the situation and his temper; yet allowed both to control him. If it comes out that he has anger management problems, he's toast!
This is an issue that should go to trial. An the father will hopefully have a decent attorney to represent him. Given the evidence thus far, if I was the jury, I would say he was guilty. Not because he's a firearm owner. But because he had supreme responsibility and failed to manage that responsibility. correctly. That failure led to the death of another person. For anyone with a firearm this subject should serve as a reminder. Its understandable to be angry in a situation like this, but blind rage is not acceptable. That firearm comes with a heavy dose of responsibility to not miss use it.
You know, I have pointed out the law in Texas a number of times on this topic, and I have yet to see anyone acknowledge that the father was acting within the law in every respect. The Texas statute covering this is pretty straight forward.
The only thing that would have changed a damn thing is if the daughter had not lied and then daddy shot the kid.
So, once more, lets go over the facts, as acknowledged by the investigators assigned to the case and the authorities
making statements to the press.
1) A 16 year old girl invites a 17 year old boy to her home at 2AM. First, since she is a minor living at home, the parents (not the children) have the final say on who can come into the house and at what time.
Legally, trying to use the "he was invited" argument is invalid. The parent did not invite the boy over and the daughter did not have the legal right to invite someone into the house without her parents approval.
2) This part is for Lucy, and everyone else claiming the father was a violent, gun toting maniac, if daddy was a violent hot head who the girl was deathly afraid of, why the hell did he call 911 and wait for the police instead of shooting the boy outright?
The events leading up to the shooting is as follows, as per statements to the police.
A) Boy found hiding in daughter's room, daughter lies about not knowing the boy.
B) Father calls 911 and detains the boy while waiting for police
C) An argument ensues between the boy, the daughter and the father, and it becomes heated. Now during this time, the boy is holding his hands in such a manner so as to assure gun toting crazed violent daddy does not shoot him.
D) The boy drops his hands as if to reach for something or attempted to grab the gun (reports seem to differ) and daddy pulls the trigger.
Now Lucy, only an idiot would try to take a gun from someone who is pointing it at you (or unless it is in the movies and the hero has to do it to save a life,) especially if the person with the gun pointing at them knows that the police have been called.
So, lets give the kid the benefit of doubt and assume he was reaching for something innocent, like his ID or cell phone to prove to the father that he had spoken to the girl prior to coming over at 2AM.
Daddy, with a shit ton of adrenalin running through him reacts by squeezing the trigger. Boy dies.
Up until that boy moved his hands for whatever reason, sounds like daddy was in no hurry to put a bullet in anyone. If he was, why the hell didnt he shoot the kid first and then call 911?
And to imply he was just looking for an excuse to shoot someone doesn't wash, it is an attempt to demonize an individual who was being perfectly reasonable and trying not to shoot someone.
And if the daughter was so scared of daddy that she had to sneak a boy into the house at 2 in the morning, indicates that the daughter was too stupid for words.
And on the scared of daddy daughter argument, there is no evidence anywhere at this time that the father was an overbearing despot of a parent that ruled his home with an iron fist and violence.
So, to use a legal term, you are assuming facts not in evidence or has no support to prove the claim.
Now if you have proof that the daughter was afraid of her father, a source, please supply it.
And one last really fucking stupid question.
If she could sneak a boy into the house, why the fuck could she not sneak out of the house?
Stands to reason that if she were afraid of her father, getting the hell out of the house makes a hell of a lot more sense than to be in the house with a person you are scared of.
Let me guess, she could not sneak out of the house because she was chained to something? maybe her father had a gps tracking collar on her? Wait, I know, he had a extreme version of a shock collar on her that would shock the fuck out of her if she left the house or yard, like the invisible fence systems for dogs?
|
|
|
|
