10-Year-Old With Gun Threatens Woman After She Jokes About Taking His Halloween Candy

[Cirque du So-What]

Trick or Treat? 10-Year-Old With Gun Threatens Woman After She Jokes About Taking His Halloween Candy

By Susie Madrak

Still think handgun insurance is a bad idea? Suppose this Georgia woman had been shot. This is exactly the kind of crazy stuff for which actual victims should be able to sue. Some critics have pointed out that you can already file a claim against someone's homeowner's insurance -- but not everyone owns a home. If this handgun owner knew his mandatory insurance premiums would go up dramatically if his grandkids got hold of his gun, he might have been a little more careful. Right, grandpa?

A 10-year-old Aiken trick-or-treater pulled a gun on a woman who said she would take his candy on Halloween.
According to a police incident report, the 28-year-old victim told authorities she recognized some boys from her neighborhood while they were trick-or-treating about 6:30 p.m. Monday near Schroeder and George streets and jokingly told them she would take their candy.

One 10-year-old in the group of about 10 juveniles responded with “no you’re not …” and then pointed a 9 mm handgun at her.
According to Aiken Public Safety Lt. David Turno, the clip was not in the gun at the time, but the boy did have a loaded clip in his possession.
The boy’s brother, also 10, told authorities he also had a gun. The second weapon was recovered Tuesday morning.

I've always been adamant about letting kids wander in a house with guns. My father-in-law kept a loaded handgun in his bedside table, and refused to take the bullets out while we were visiting. That's why my kids were never allowed to stay overnight with their grandparents. (I was "overreacting," my mother-in-law told me. "Better safe than sorry," I told her.)

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/trick-or-treat-10-year-old-gun-threat

This article prompted some questions on my part:

1. Was the 10-year-old boy within his rights to protect his property? Also, for all he knew, the woman could have been using the 'gimme your candy' ruse in order to get close enough to abduct him.

2. Assuming the woman had herself been armed, would she have been within her rights to neutralize the threat - even to the extent of using deadly force? After all, there's no way she could have known the gun wasn't loaded.

3. What's the deal with 'handgun insurance?' My only familiarity is with the coverage provided through my homeowner's insurance. I get the impression from the author's tone that there is some controversy over it.

All answers appreciated. Thanks

[valerief]

1. Kids shouldn't have guns. Whoever allowed the kid access to the gun should be

held criminally responsible.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Well, yeah, I was working from that basic premise as well

That's why I didn't even address it, as I would hope that 10-year-olds absconding with unsecured weapons and roaming the streets would be seen as a bad thing.

[valerief]

8. It's amazing that it isn't a bad thing to some people. "Well, we make sure our kids is fully trained

in gun safety." Ten-year-olds can be trained in anything -- except judgment. That comes with experience and that takes more than ten years.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Can you city that assertion that "it isn't a bad thing to some people" please.

I've never seen that before, thanks.

[valerief]

21. You're not paying attention then. I find things via the Google. And I listen to people. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

22. I take that to mean "no" you cannot cite such an utterance, statement, or writing.

I've seen many here on DU advocate for firearms safety instruction in schools, myself being one of them, but I have NEVER seen anyone advocate for children carrying guns as in this story. You claim to have heard or read such but cannot cite it??? Hummmm. . . .

[valerief]

23. If you're so interested, google it. I won't stop you. Really. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

24. YOU made the ridiculous assertion. It is your responsibility to prove it.

I believe the saying is "back it up or back it down". We see that you cannot back up your assertion bullshit. It is what it is, and the smell is getting rank.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[valerief]

25. No, it isn't my responsibility. It really, really isn't. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

27. Um, yes it it. You made a ridiculous statement that has no proof or evidence and

when asked to cite proof you are now embarrassed that you cannot prove it. I understand you being embarrassed about being caught saying something that is not based in fact. Please though, don't get defensive about it. Just admit your mistake, learn from it, and move on.

Of course you will have my apologies if you can prove your statement. But I seriously doubt that you will, because you cannot. :rofl:

[valerief]

30. No. It isn't. You want something, then pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get it yourself.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. After exhaustive research of print and online material I have discovered that your claim is Bullshit...

Prove it if you can. . .


Yeah, I'll wait for it.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

52. Chirp, chirp, chirp.

[Hoopla Phil]

57. Looks like valerief was not able to find any evidence supporting the claim either. I'll take your

lack of refutation as an acknowledgment that the previous claim is in fact Bullshit.

Thank you

[SteveM]

34. Responsibility: Why don't you take it instead of lecturing on it. nt

[valerief]

38. I think you posted to the wrong person. nt

[Euromutt]

42. Yes, it is. It really, really is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof quoting Alex Michalos Principles of Logic:

Usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

Argument from ignorance

At this juncture, I think it's fair to invoke the principle (as worded by Christopher Hitchens) that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." In other words, you're free to not provide evidence supporting your assertion, but if you do, we're free to refuse to believe you.

[iverglas]

45. now go look up "disingenuous"

and report back, will ya?

[PavePusher]

53. Holy shit....

Quick, anyone know the cure for an over-dose of Irony?

[SteveM]

33. "Squawk! Squawk!"

[DrDan]

55. absolutely - right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x476795

5 think there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. And that's just those that responded to the poll.

[SteveM]

32. I was trained before I was 10. It helped my judgment as well.

Why are you so afraid?

[pipoman]

46. So you oppose training kids in gun safety?

[DrDan]

56. here is one cite - from just the past few days

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476795&mesg_id=476795

5 said there should be no restrictions on gun ownership.

[Kolesar]

9. The 'wingers here in "my cubicle hell" like to mock the Cleveland gun buy-back program

White suburban men who don't even live in integrated neighborhoods think they know everything.

[oneshooter]

47. How can it be a "buy back" since Cleveland never owned them in the first place?

[Kolesar]

50. obtuse ... eom

[oneshooter]

51. So if you are asked a question that you will not, or more likely can not

answer, is "obtuse". Typical of the anti. make a statement, then when questioned about it, you run like a whipped dog.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Kolesar]

2. Georgia, oh Georgia, no peace I find

Just an old sweet song
Keeps Georgia on my mind

[Euromutt]

37. Aiken's actually in South Carolina

Albeit it just across the state border (formed by the Savannah river) from Augusta.

[Remmah2]

3. Total lack of parental supervision.

No way would my 10 year old be going out on Halloween unescorted. (And no iverglas I wouldn't be "totin" either). Total insanity on the part of the parents, just hang a sign on the kids that says; kidnap me, molest me, drug me.......................

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Unless you give him a gun, of course. nt

[ileus]

5. 10yo pulls a gun on me I'm putting them down before they become a danger to society.

No...not really.

[slackmaster]

28. Yeah, me too.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Umbrella liability insurance.

I carry a half million in it, because I do conceal carry, and it could help to mitigate in the off, remote chance I make some sort of mistake.

I do recommend it. If you plan to carry, it's just prudent to do so, just like talking to a lawyer about your state carry and self defense laws and CASE law. It's one thing to read a law, another to understand how that law gets implemented in the wild, at court.

Insurance, training (legal and accuracy), retention. All good, prudent ideas.

[TheMadMonk]

10. 1. no. 2. definitely. 3. Man from Prudential coughs up if owner's negligence...

...results in his gun being used in a crime.

1) AFAIK very few if any states permit the use of deadly force to protect mere property in a public place. Protection of person is another thing and the threat still has to be credible, serious and imminent.

2) The threat to her was credible, serious and imminent. Even a police officer trained to handle an armed asailant would be justified in this situation.

3) Um, you can't see the controversy in an insurance company offering insurance against willful negligence and paying out cheerfully, but refusing to honour their commitment to insure the life of a child.

Why? Perhaps because they treat policies of all types the same way, max/lifetime payout. Bundle them up using the simplest of averages as a flat valuation, then sell them in bundles of 10,000 assorted policies off as investments. Which means of course never paying out over that pre-established value.

They'll have their own little toxic CDS problem if/when judges ever actually force insurers to honour medical insurance properly.

[iverglas]

13. "deadly force to protect mere property in a public place"

Sorry. Taking property from a person anywhere is called robbery, and that's an offence against the person, or "crime of violence", if you will.

I don't think there are many states in the union that would not allow the use of potentially deadly force to defend against a robbery, even involving Hallowe'en candy.

Goodness, here we had an adult threatening to take (i.e. without consent, i.e. by force or threats) a child's property.

Look at the unequal size and strength here. The child needs a gun to level that playing field. Obviously.

[TheMadMonk]

20. Yes it's called robbery. But there still has to be a credible threat...

...to person, not property alone. A bag snatch, or other forms of taking by main force alone would not qualify except in those moments where both parties have their hands on the disputed item(s). A store clerk (or owner) is not justified in shooting an escaping shoplifter. Threat of direct personal harm has to be offered. And once the threat has passed, harm done, is again generally not considered acceptable reason to use deadly force. At best it might be considered a mittigating factor.

Goodness, here we had an adult threatening to take (i.e. without consent, i.e. by force or threats) a child's property.

We have an adult, with at least a passing acquaintance (easily confirmed) with a child making a joke.

Look at the unequal size and strength here. The child needs a gun to level that playing field. Obviously.

The reason the government doesn't allow children concealed carry permits, is because they can't be trusted to properly recognise a credible threat.

That brothers (step/twin/near age) were both in possession of handguns indicates something seriously fucked up: Wannabe gang members; recruits; idolation of father, older sibling, or cousin; possibly victims of bullying or abuse; or perhaps even little unthinking shits who thought it would be cool to take real guns as part of their Hallowe'en costume, in which case the gun owner should, in addition to the firearms offences, be held accountable for the trauma caused an adult who shot a child in self defence, not excused some or all punishment because their little darling died.

The reason we have society is to remove the need for children to defend themselves against their environment.

Given my experience of the denizens of the Gungeon, I shall assume in the absence of a :sarcasm: tag, that you are serious.

A society which demands the need for children to protect themselves with deadly force is not at all a healthy one.

A society which routinely and casually puts firearms within easy reach of children in an uncontrolled/unschooled fashion is not a healthy one. Before you say it doesn't, let me point out, all too many armed gang bangers ARE children as young as this.

A society where a child in possession of a handgun is a very credible and immediate threat, and not a little fool about to be "tanned within an inch of his life" (Not a credible threat, just a common expression of my youth.) is not AT ALL a healthy one.

[iverglas]

29. that ain't the law

Threatening to take something from someone without consent is a threat to use force. The victim of the threat is 100% entitled to use force to prevent it, no matter what is about to be taken.

Where the victim is a child, about the only force that would work would involve a weapon, doncha think? I mean, the kid could try kicking the adult in the shins and then knocking them over when they grabbed their leg ...

I do hate to spoil the game, but I apologize if you thought I was serious.

The fact remains that what I said is 100% consistent with what any gun militant on the globe says -- they just won't admit it.

I'm the one in Canada, where we have mandatory licensing for all firearms possession, mandatory registration of all firearms (at least this week, the new majority right-wing government not yet having pushed through that bit of its plan to destroy Canadian society), limited (not limited enough) access to handguns, and laws requiring varying degrees of safe/secure storage. Which is how things are done in the modern world. ;)

[Starboard Tack]

36. Yup, all kids should automatically be issued CCW permits after passing safe handling tests

Think of all the bullying that would be stopped in public schools.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Two kids had guns.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-11-01/trick-or-treater-10-pulls-gun?v=1320149088

"According to Aiken Public Safety Lt. David Turno, the clip was not in the gun at the time, but the boy did have a loaded clip in his possession.

The boy’s brother, also 10, told authorities he also had a gun.

Turno said the boys got the weapons from their grandfather without permission."

These two kids stole weapons from their grandfather, and then used them to be tough guys on Halloween. They are lucky no one, including themselves, got shot.

But insurance is not a big deal for this sort of thing. When I bought my million-dollar insurance policy, they didn't even ask about firearms. You know why? People who buy insurance policies are usually not gangster thugs who are out to shoot people.

There would not be much financial cost to getting such insurance.

[iverglas]

12. absolutely

Ten-year-olds have the absolute right to defend themselves and their property against muggers.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that children have no rights??

And that woman would have been absolutely within her rights to whip out her own gun and double-tap the kid to centre mass. Followed, if she was smart enough to keep up on modern anti-thug techniques, with a quick shot to the head.

No jury in the land would have convicted her. In fact, there would have been outrage if she had even been charged.

Not that it's an easy situation. Ordinarily, I'm not sure what public opinion would say about a would-be mugger shooting their intended mugging victim in self-defence. Can't see a problem with it, myself. Everybody has the right to self-defence, right? It's one of those natural right things.

I guess it would all depend on whether she was able to persuade the prosecutor or the jury that she wasn't really mugging the kid. But we all know about corrupt prosecutors and brainwashed juries ... she might have fallen victim to one of them.

I'm trying to figure out how this would play out in one of those stand-your-ground states. Damn, these things can make your head hurt, can't they?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

15. Most people who don't own homes RENT them, and renter's insurance is a very good thing to have

It's one of the best insurance deals available.

Anyone who rents and doesn't get insurance is either a fool, or too poor to afford a gun.

[Hoyt]

16. This is what our "Gun Culture" gets us. It will only get worse until action taken to make guns all

but "taboo."

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Still hoping for a rise in crime rates, eh? How very progressive of you...

...Not.

[Hoyt]

31. Nope, just commented on another 10 year old kid emulating his gun toting heroes.

[oneshooter]

26. When are you going to get rid of yours?

It will only get worse until action taken to make guns all but "taboo."

Posted by Hoyt

If you truly feel that way, then ged rid of yours. Unless you are all hot air and bullshit.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

35. Your "taboo:" The Font of corruption, prohibitionism, and false morality. nt

[Union Scribe]

39. Okay, you go start with the criminals

then come talk to us when that's all sorted out. Have fun.

[Remmah2]

48. Hollywood must be in on the conspiracy.

They provide the best training films and cultural indoctrination. It's not a "gun culture" it's a culture of acceptable violence. The sad thing is so many anti-gun celebrities make their living acting with guns and creating myths.

ie: Mark Harmon

[Hoyt]

49. The toters here like to say they are part of "gun culture" like that makes packing in public dandy.

[PavePusher]

54. Cite, please. n/t

[Glassunion]

17. Hell yeah! This is 'Merica damn it!

1. Shit yeah!!!
2. Hell no she was the instigator. In America we kill those.
3. Insurance is for wimps.

'Merica... Fuck Yeah!

[ileus]

40. toter or treat

[Union Scribe]

43. Halloween is such a rude time of year!

[Euromutt]

44. I see a it of a disconnect between "stuff for which actual victims should be able to sue" and...

...requiring "handgun insurance." (Aside: why only handguns? It's not like there's never been a juvenile who caused mayhem with long guns stolen from his grandfather.)

Suppose this Georgia woman had been shot. This is exactly the kind of crazy stuff for which actual victims should be able to sue.

(Aiken's actually in South Carolina.) Suppose she had? Why wouldn't she be able to sue the grandfather for negligence contributing to her injury? Granted, it might limit the amount of money in damages the plaintiff might actually be able to extract from the defendant, but that's not what Ms Madrak professes to be concerned about. Wouldn't the objective she posits (that "this handgun owner <be> a little more careful") be just effectively achieved--arguably more so--if he'd had to pay damages out of his own pocket?

Also, given the nature of insurance companies (which is that they don't make a profit by paying out), it's a safe bet the gun owner's insurance company would fight tooth and nail to resist paying out, arguing that the kid willfully committed an illegal act and that isn't covered by the policy bla bla fishcakes, so the plaintiff might end up having to spend more time and money on the suit.