Hospital report: Teen was shot in the back by his neighbor

[pinniped]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cpdrewes02nov02,0,7443883.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

Hospital report: Teen was shot in the back by his neighbor

By Robert Eckhart
Staff Writer
Posted November 2 2003

Emergency room reports released by lawyer Robert Montgomery on Saturday show that 16-year-old Mark Drewes was shot in the back.

Drewes was killed by the single shot fired by Jay Levin, 40, a neighbor who told detectives that he shot Drewes in self-defense after the teen knocked on his door after midnight on Oct. 25.

A diagram in one of the reports released by Montgomery, attorney for the Drewes family, shows that the bullet pierced the teen's back near his right shoulder blade and went through his chest.

Drewes had no pulse when medics from Palm Beach Beach County Fire-Rescue station 55 found him at 12:43 a.m. near Levin's home on Woodbury Road in Boca Del Mar. He had no pulse or blood pressure when he arrived at Delray Medical Center at 1:05 a.m., the records show.

More:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cpdrewes02nov02,0,7443883.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

________________________

So much for that self-defense claim.

"Levin has no criminal record in Florida, and obtained a concealed weapon permit for his pistol."

Some responsible gun owner this guy turned out to be. Shoot first ask questions later.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Shoot first ask questions later?

So he's a retired cop then?

/sarcasm

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Romulus]

2. it takes a split-second to turn around

This guy could have fired at the 6'2" 200-lb kid before the kid turned around and ran away.

Police "shoot people in the back" this way all the time. Don't be a Ken Starr- wait for all the info to come in before you go passing judgement.

[TankLV]

3. I would LOVE to see that bit of gymnastics.

Worthy of Siegfried & Roy!

If the kid decided to turn and run away, then the shooting was utterly unjustified.

And, besides, just how fast was this kid's reactions, when no-one else on this planet can do what you are claiming he did?

Damn uppity blacks must've just JUMPED into those nooses and hung themselves from those trees back in the "good ol days", too, huh?

I put that right up there with the "everybody does it" crowd:

"Everybody drive drunk and kills people (Cheeney, Pickles, et all)..."

"Everybody is a bully and chases kids and beats them up..."

"Everybody steals and cheats and lies..." (Enron, Repukes, bunkerboy).

[DoNotRefill]

18. Shootings don't happen instantaneously...

Once you decide to shoot somebody, you have to get the gun into position, aim the gun, and pull the trigger. That takes a small amount of time. And I'm simply POSITIVE that when the guy went out the door, it startled the kids, who suddenly turned from aggressors into defenders. When you're startled, do you just stand there, or do you move? And I don't know about you, but I can turn my body 90 degrees in well under half a second. Given that the kid undoubtedly had a pretty good adrenaline rush going due to the nature of his previous actions, I find it quite plausible that the kid could turn 90 (or even 180) degrees in a fraction of a second.

The fact remains: These kids went out looking for trouble, to scare the hell out of innocent people, as a "prank". They shoulder the vast majority of the blame.

If a kid goes out and points a realistic toy gun at a cop as a "prank" and gets shot for his efforts, is it the cop's fault? Of course not.

[TankLV]

25. Nice bit of fantasy you have.

I'd like to see your scenerio - it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to do what you stated.

These children were pranksters - ringing doorbells and running. It's Halloween. This has been done for countless years in this local. If that gun nut yahoo had his gun drawn BEFORE EVEN KNOWING THE SITUATION, it's premeditation - attempted murder.

By what you stated, he didn't even give the kid a chance to run away - instead, according to you, he shot the kid IN THE BACK AFTER THE CHILD, IN A SPLIT SECOND, DECIDED TO RUN AWAY! Tha gun toting moron should be IN JAIL and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Typical repuke reaction. Another "pre-emptive" bit of hogwash. Just like bunkerboy in Iraq. Just thinking someone is a threat to you is not good enough to attempt to kill him - and shooting at someone is just that - an attempt to kill - according to the law, one has to be certain of imminent death or subtantial injury before lethal force can be used - a man's home is not his castle - ANY means to defend one's home is not allowed. From the accounts in the news sources, and not YOUR fantasy scenerio, the shooting was WAY overboard.

Nice try at repuke "logic". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[DoNotRefill]

27. How is it preemptive?

The shooter didn't go out looking for people on the off chance that they were going to trespass, he was in his home asleep when trouble came looking for him.

This guy's house had been SHOT AT before, once with paintball guns breaking two windows, and once with a regular gun putting a hole in another window. Shooting at an occupied house isn't something that normally falls under the definition of a "prank", is it?

"Just thinking someone is a threat to you is not good enough to attempt to kill him - and shooting at someone is just that - an attempt to kill - according to the law, one has to be certain of imminent death or subtantial injury before lethal force can be used - a man's home is not his castle - ANY means to defend one's home is not allowed."

In much of the country, the Castle Doctrine is still good law. Also, thinking somebody is a threat to you IS grounds for self-defense including the use of lethal force, if the belief is REASONABLE. There's no need for absolute certainty that your death is imminent. And contrary to the opinion of some, you don't have to let the person kill you before you defend yourself.

Here's Florida's self-defense statute: "782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.--The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be. " http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0782/SEC02.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0782->Section%2002

Burglary is a felony. If the man's belief was that he was being burgled, then it's very possible that the shooting was legally justified.

[TahitiNut]

33. Nonsense.

It is NOT reasonable (or sane) to think a felony is either being attempted or in progress when a person merely rings a doorbell. (What are doorbells for, for heaven's sake?!?)

It is NOT reasonable (or sane) to think one is being threatened when the other person is running away.

Insofar as Florida's statute is concerned, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate any "attempt" was made to commit any felony, nor is there anything to indicate it was reasonable (or sane) to have such a belief.

There's obviously a history here. This was neither a 'good neighbor' nor were people justified in whatever degree of harrassment they committed over what ever period of time. To shoot someone for ringing your doorbell because someone else, at some other time, broke your window is criminally insane, imho.

Halloween. How many times was his doorbell rung that evening? It sounds very much to me that he was angry. His anger is NOT justification for homicide. No way; no how.

[DoNotRefill]

43. First, it was a week before Halloween, not ON Halloween.

Secondly, it was around midnight, not exactly time for "trick or treat". Thirdly, there was one person at the door ringing the bell, and a second person staring in the window or rattling the window or whatever he was doing to draw the attention of the person being woken up, the 6'2" 200 pound guy, who appeared to have something in his hand.

Let me ask you this. If your house had been shot at previously, and you were woken up by a ringing doorbell, looked at the window, and saw a 6'2" tall male weighing 200 pounds staring in at you with something in his hands, don't you think that you (or any other REASONABLE person) would be scared to death? The other kid and the parents ADMIT that they were out there trying to scare the neighbors. So why should ANYBODY be surprised when the neighbors were scared?

Oh...and home invasion and burglary are both felonies. If they were really there playing "ding dong ditch", why were they still there after ringing the doorbell? You push the doorbell button and run away, right? So, they ring the doorbell, and wait so long that the guy wakes up, grabs his gun, and makes it to the front door before running away? How plausible is that? The other kid ADMITS that they were out there to terrorize him. That's a frigging felony on a stick, gift-wrapped, and not even hearsay since it's clearly a statement against interests.

[Romulus]

61. read and learn

Posted by TankLV :
"I would LOVE to see that bit of gymnastics."
Worthy of Siegfried & Roy!
If the kid decided to turn and run away, then the shooting was utterly unjustified.
And, besides, just how fast was this kid's reactions, when no-one else on this planet can do what you are claiming he did?


Read this entire report, and you will understand what I was talking about:

Physical Lag Times and Their Impact On The Use Deadly Force
Previously published in The Tactical Edge, Spring 1995
By: Captain Michael R. Hillmann, Los Angeles Police Department

http://www.lapdonline.org/general_information/dept_pub_program/physical_lag.htm

*snip*

An officer stated during the officer involved shooting interview he discharged his firearm in defense of himself when the suspect was facing him. The forensic evidence indicated however, the bullet track was posterior (back) to anterior (front). Under the specific circumstances, perception time, brain lag and reaction time of the officer, combined with continued movement of the target (suspect), may have accounted for the inconsistency between the officer's initial statement and the actual evidence

*snip*

The police officer, in pursuit, perceives the threat (0.1 second), stops, assesses that he is in imminent danger of being shot, decides on the appropriate use of force and makes the decision to shoot (0.6 to 0.8 or more seconds). At this point, the suspect is continuing to move, turn, bend, squat, run, climb, throw, stop etc.. In the beat of a heart, the officer makes the decision to shoot, based upon the belief of imminent threat to life. He acquires the target, aligns his front and rear sight and squeezes the trigger twice in rapid succession (1.0 second or more). The suspect falls to the ground shot in the back. Under the circumstances, the officer's perception of the threat, decision to shoot plus actual shooting time, required at least 1.0 second or more to implement. During this period of time the officer observed certain facts and decided on a course of action while the suspect's movement continued. In closer examination, at the time the officer actually commenced shooting one would probably find that the suspect was turning back, toward his left when the bullet(s) impacted . During the post incident, officer interview however, the officer may have recalled he discharged his weapon while the suspect was facing him, when in reality, the suspect actually was in the process of turning away from him.

*snip/end*

Have a nice day.:hi:

[snippy]

5. Why would someone turn around AFTER a gun is fired at him when he

just as easily could have dodged the bullet?

[DoNotRefill]

19. The point here...

is that when the guy ran out onto his porch, it scared the kids, who then started to run away. It's quite plausible that the shooter fired as the kids were turning to run. Guns aren't "magic", they take a second to employ properly. A second is a LONG time in a fight.

None of this changes the fact that they deliberately went out that night looking for trouble, trying to scare people in their own homes. They should have thought for a minute and realized that they might succeed.

[snippy]

35. So the shooter deliberately fired after the kid turned away?

Or the shooter deliberately fired without knowing what the kid was doing?

Either way this guy committed a crime.

I own guns and do not believe this shooter should. He should be convicted and lose his right to own firearms.

[DoNotRefill]

44. This isn't a RPG...

where each party waits to take an "action" turn while everybody else stands still. How inplausible is it that while the shooter was shooting, the kid was turning? The guy undoubtedly made noise when he threw the door open and ran out onto the porch, startling the dead kid. When you're startled while doing something you KNOW you're not supposed to be doing, would a normal person stand still or move?

[snippy]

55. I own guns. I would never allow either the shooter in this case or you

to be near me or my family or my dog with a weapon. Gun ownership involves responsibilty. The shooter in this case should be convicted and lose his right to own firearms.

[bahrbearian]

8. Super Kid

Faster than a Speeding Bullet ??

[snippy]

11. Exactly. Evidently.

[bleedingheart]

4. Okay this situation could have been avoided

1. When someone knocks on your door after midnight, you can..

a. answer the door
b. look out a window to see who it is and ask what they want
c. call the police if you are really concerned about your welfare.
d. answer the door with a loaded gun

It is a bit odd that the kid went to the door after midnight but perhaps there was an innocent reason. For example, my mom's neighbor knocked on her door at midnight once when he got up to see that my mom had left her garage door open.

This is a very sad situation.

[absolutezero]

6. he was playing dingdong ditch

shows them punk kids....nobody's gonna ring my doorbell from now on...served him right interupting me while i watched faux news

[bleedingheart]

7. Its funny you should say that.. my son was telling my husband

about this game the kids at school play called ding dong, dash...(pre-halloween antics..common in our area) and he explained it and asked if he could try it....thinking it would be a funny thing to do. We vehemently told him that he could not play it because of this type of situation.

[ikojo]

14. We called it ring and run

when I was a kid...too bad a childish prank got this kid killed.

Wow, are people PARANOID or what?!

[DoNotRefill]

16. If you were asleep in the middle of the night...

and woke up to your doorbell ringing repeatedly and a 6'2" 200 pound guy standing at your window with something in his hand, after your house had been SHOT AT previously, wouldn't YOU be scared?

They went out to deliberately scare people. They should have known that they might actually scare somebody, and that person might react. That's exactly what happened here, with tragic results.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. And I suppose the Buddha would've locked 'n loaded too? n/t

[Throckmorton]

23. Yes, I'd be scared,

and the last thing I would do is open the door and remove the barrier between me and the person, gun or no gun.

If I could not establish quickly what said person wanted, by yelling through the door, then I would call the cops. I'd also load my shotgun, but would remain inside my house, and hope this person goes away.

What I would not do is confront the person.

[DoNotRefill]

28. So...

if the guy's got a 5 gallon can of gasoline, doesn't your refusal to act mean that the chance of your house being burned down with you in it is increased?

This guy apparently saw something in the dead kid's hand through the window that the kid was staring through. Should he have waited for the kid to start shooting at him? After all, his house had been shot at before....

[snippy]

37. So . . . What if the kid had Saddam's WMD?

No responsible gun owner shoots without knowing why.

[DoNotRefill]

45. He knew why...

he had intruders on his property in the middle of the night trying to gain entrance to his house.

[joshcryer]

38. You are so full of fear it's not even funny, man.

Seriously. You are trying so deseprately to create scenarios of fear. Be afraid of people walking in front of your house because they might burn it down!

I bet if I was as afrad as you're trying to make me be, I'd "see things" in peoples hands, too. I mean, I'm supposed to be so freaking paranoid that I have to fear every little thing, and chances are, I'm going to be afraid of someones hand which I can't fully see. I'm going to be afraid of someone with a jacket which isn't see through and I can't be sure they have a weapon or not so if they put their hands in their pocket, I have to shoot them. I'm going to be afraid of someone who is tying their shoes, because my goodness, they could have a boot gun and I have to be careful! Oh! He's adjusting his hat! I have to be afraid that he might have some sort of weapon inside his hat!

Aaaaah. Must.be.afraid!!!

[pinniped]

41. Sure seems that way.

This gun freakazoid wouldv'e shot a midget or an Oompa Loompa from Wonka's Chocolate Factory.. Sorry, no disrespect to midgets or Oompa Loompas.

Watch out for those old folks with walking sticks or canes. They might have a cane gun.

[DoNotRefill]

46. I didn't create the scenario of fear, the kids did so DELIBERATELY.

They went OUT to SCARE the neighbors. That was their PLAN. They succeeded.

Please tell us what possible GOOD scenario there is for two people to be outside your house at midnight, one repeatedly ringing your doorbell, and one staring in your window. Girl Scout cookie season? Not quite.

[pinniped]

39. Please post the link to the story you're reading from.

I asked for it a couple times already on the other thread but you failed to post it.

I want to see where it says the kid was STARING THROUGH his window.

I also want to see where it says the kid was trying to GET IN his window.

If you shot a burglar wouldn't you claim to have seen something in his hand? The police do that all the time and it works for them.

So you found out his house was shot at with a bullet right? That's what you said on the other thread. But I'm still wondering where the magic bullet landed because the article just says "hole in his window". It doesn't say hole in his wall. It doesn't say hole in his EZ-chair.

Just post the link so we can clear this up.

[DoNotRefill]

47. OK...

"In the first case, a 16-year-old boy playing a prank was shot to death by his neighbor early Saturday morning.

Jay Levin, 40, told police he was awakened by knocking and saw Mark Drewes' 6-foot-2, 200-pound frame in his window. Levin said he thought he saw something in Drewes' hand, opened his door and fired. He then called 911 and told dispatchers he had just shot a burglar. The teen with Drewes that night said he and his friend began running away when they saw the gun. Drewes, the friend said, was shot in the back."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/search/sfl-ppdefense31oct31,0,161344.story

One kid knocking on the door, the other one looking in his window.

There are lots of times when bullets fired are not recovered, even when they kill somebody. Ever hear of a ricochet? Bullets, especially small bullets, do that all the time off of glass.

[pinniped]

51. Not exactly what you've been saying.

Please QUOTE the line where it says the kid was LOOKING IN his window. I'm still not seeing it.

Also QUOTE the line where it says the kid was trying to GET IN his window. I'm not seeing that either.

I figured that would be your bullet response. Fact is you don't know it's a bullet or not so why even speculate?

There are plenty of things that could've made that hole in his window.

I believe you were just about to quote those two lines for me...

[hang a left]

24. We called it ding dong ditch also, but were were 11 and 12 years

old. Isn't 16 awfully old to be playing that game?

Having said that, I just watched for the first time this morning Bowling for Columbine.

The "culture of fear" that is homegrown here in this country using the corporate owned media is a sobering realization.

[bahrbearian]

10. Or Fire a Couple of warning shot's through the door...

[classics]

13. Even better

Have parents teach rotten little punks not to trespass in the middle of the night.

It really lowers thier chance of getting ganked during a 'prank' on the wrong psycho.

[sendero]

9. this..

...guy (the shooter) would not want me on his grand jury, I can tell you that. There is no way in hell to spin this into a "I was threatened" situation and incidents like these give the anti-gun contingent legitimate fodder.

I hope he goes to jail for manslaughter.

[JNelson6563]

12. Asshole

I'm sorry, I meant to say What A Great American! :eyes:

Julie

[Sideways]

15. Julie You Just Read My Mind

Great American WHANKING FUCKWITTAGE. And an ASSHOLE. :crazy:

[Resistance Is Futile]

17. Good riddence

Another world-be delinquant bites the dust.

[alarimer]

20. How dare you

What a shitty thing to say! You know nothing about that kid. It is a tragedy. It is always a tragedy when someone is shot. THERE ARE TOO MANY FUCKING GUNS IN THE HANDS OF TOO MANY VIGILANTE ASSHOLES!!!!!!!
That guy should go to jail for a very long time. The kid was running away for god's sake.

[DoNotRefill]

29. What we know about the kid:

1. He was into terrorizing his neighbors in the middle of the night.
2. He had a previous history of vandalizing the neighborhood (his parents admitted this.)
3. He was trespassing in the middle of the night.
4. He was 6'2" tall, and weighed 200 pounds. That's NOT a "small" child.
5. He was out there that night trying to scare the hell out of his neighbor.
6. He scared the hell out of his neighbor.
7. He got shot for his efforts.

[snippy]

36. What we know about the shooter

1. He fired his weapon without knowing what the situation was.

[joshcryer]

40. Alternatively: he's a big scaredy cat.

Apparently being afraid means that you don't have to be responsible for your actions. I mean, I could drive off the street and run over a lot of people, because something scary made me do it (maybe I was being chased by a monster, or I thought the people on the street were gang members and they had guns and tehy were pointing them at me!!!), and it'd be just fine and dandy.

[snippy]

42. Hard to know his rationale for shooting the kid.

No responsible gun owner would ever shoot without knowing what he was shooting at and why. No responsible gun owner would ever defend someone who shoots without knowing what he was shooting at and why.

The pre-emptive execution, whether by a government or an individual, of someone who might commit a crime is indefensible, immoral, and evil. That is, of course, the Bush Doctrine however.

[DoNotRefill]

49. He knew what he was shooting at and why.

He was shooting at somebody who he thought was trying to do him harm, somebody who was already someplace he shouldn't have been, and at a time when he shouldn't have been there.

Change ONE element, and it would have been unjustified. If it was 3 PM, it wouldn't have been justified. It was midnight. If it had just been a matter of TPing his yard, it wouldn't have been justified. They were trying to scare him, not vandalize the yard. If they had rang the doorbell and then run away, it wouldn't have been justified. They didn't, they pounded on the door and waited for him to open it.

Given the totality of the circumstances and the statement that they were out there to annoy and frighten the neighbors, it's justified.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Heh...

so, if you've got two people trying to gain entrance to your house in the middle of the night, two people, one of whom admits that the goal was to frighten neighbors, it's unreasonable to be frightened?

FACT: The kids were trying to scare the guy. The survivor admitted it.
FACT: The kids were on his property in the middle of the night, where they weren't supposed to be.
FACT: At the VERY least, they didn't have "ding dong ditch" as a game figured out very well, since they beat on his door and then waited for him to wake up, get his gun, and get to the door. Either they were COMPLETE morons (to have not have figured the game out better than that) or they were not exactly playing "ding dong ditch".

If they had been yelling "Hey! help! there's been an accident!" or "Hey! Help! the neighbor's house is on fire!" or "Hey! help! Call the police, somebody's been hurt!" then it wouldn't have been justified. That's NOT what happened. They were trying to scare the guy, and were successful.

[FlaGranny]

52. Scared people do not open their front doors

and run outside to confront and shoot two men on their front step, one weighing 200 pounds. This man was not scared, he was angry. These two could have had guns. What was he thinking when he opened his front door? Very, very stupid thing to do. Did he not have a phone and fingers to dial 911 as a normal person would? Would he not have stationed himself inside his home, weapon ready, in case someone actually broke in? You are justified in shooting someone who has come into you home by breaking in. You ARE NOT JUSTIFIED in shooting someone on your front porch who has knocked on your door and looks in your window. That's just stupid and irrational.

[Guaranteed]

58. Agreed.

Very perceptive distinction here.

[DoNotRefill]

64. So, if they had guns...

he should have just waited inside for them to start shooting into the house? Isn't it too late then? If you really think they're going to shoot you, the time to fire to save your own life is BEFORE they shoot you, not after.

[joshcryer]

68. In other words. Be afraid.

Be very fucking afraid. Hide your women and children. Pull out your weapons and dance around all paranoid, with it loaded and the safety off.

Be very very very afraid.

[Resistance Is Futile]

72. Too many out-of-control youth

There are far too many out of control youth running loose terrorizing urban areas. Since the legal system is too busy persecuting dissidents and non-violent drug users to make much of a dent in the loose youth problem, there's every reason to be pleased when one of these numbskulls harasses the wrong person and comes home in a box.

[truthisfreedom]

22. doesn't look good for the shooter.

if you were on the jury, what would you think? shooting people in the back as they run away is something only cops can do... neighbors can't scream out "I'M A NEIGHBOR! STOP OR I'LL SHOOT! FREEZE!"

maybe the shooter should have put his glasses on. or perhaps he should have been on medication. at any rate, i wouldn't want to be him.

[DoNotRefill]

31. He's got a better than even chance of beating criminal charges...

have you read the Florida self-defense statute?

[aeon flux]

26. We called it ding dong ditch as well

Its called ding, dong DITCH.
Not ding, dong, wait around and got shot.

I'd like to know how much time passed between the ring and the shots?

One good reason a real burglar might ring the doorbell is to make sure no one is home before breaking in.

[aeon flux]

30. What kind of burglar rings the doorbell?

Come to think of it, ALL burglars ring or knock first before entering. Unless they're really stupid or brazen.

If you wanted to burglarize a house, you'd wnat to make sure no one is home first.

[CO Liberal]

32. But None Of Us Have to Worry About LAW-ABIDING Gun Owners......

That's the line of crap I keep hearing down in Justice/Public Safety. That we only have to worry about the criminals. To which I say, "BULLSHIT!!!!"

Stories like this make me more and more in favor of gun control.

[FlaGranny]

34. I've had kids knocking on my door and running away

for the past 40 years - ever since I got my first home. Never once has one scared me and I've yet to shoot my first kid. I COULD get my revolver and shoot one I guess - if I were a very, very stupid and/or a very, very violent person. I could have gotten kids anywhere from 8 to 16 years old, some of them the size of a full grown male.

[DoNotRefill]

50. Running away being the operative word here...

these kids weren't ringing the bell and then running away. If they had done that, he couldn't have shot the kid, since he had to wake up, get the gun, and get to the door before he could do it.

[FlaGranny]

53. Well, then, he must have had plenty

of time to dial 911 BEFORE he shot then, rather than after. See my post above. The guy opens the front door to two boys (supposedly looking like grown men)? That doesn't show fear. That shows anger and stupidity.

[Guaranteed]

59. He was being cavalier. nt

[pinniped]

54. Well since the guy SHOT him in the back...

I would say there's a good chance he was trying to run away.

Or do you still think the kid twisted at the very moment he was blasted? Pretty good, the kid could twist faster than a bullet traveling at over 800+fps.

[Zen0]

56. attacking, pranking, thieving, defending.....

All opinions.


Going over the same situation but adding your own scenarios to it is pointless. We only have what happened. If the man meant to attack this child in a malicious way then it's a crime. If not then it was a bad decision, and he shouldn't be charged. It is a forum and all- but reinstating your opinion over and over gets redundant.

[Romulus]

57. thank you

for some sanity in this armchair commando thread.

[Guaranteed]

60. I think it's pretty safe to say that 99%

of the time, if you shoot someone in the back, you're at fault. Someone with their back turned to you is helpless. You always have the option of not shooting them as long as their back is turned and they're not attacking you.

[joshcryer]

62. I hear that in Texas, *anyone* on your property...

...is fair game.

Doesn't matter if you shoot them in the back of the head execution style.

[DoNotRefill]

63. Not true....

Texas's law has an exception for property that's necessary for life. This means that under Texas law, it's OK to shoot to defend your car or horse or house or medical oxygen tank, but not OK to shoot to defend your TV or the tree in your front yard being TPed. And it's got to be during the theft, not after the fact.

[joshcryer]

67. I'm sure if a guy shot a couple of black kids in the back...

...and claimed that they were messing with his car, you would quite happily defend him. Texas, or otherwise.

[DoNotRefill]

70. depends on the scenario and if I thought it was morally justified...

and I've never been to Texas, much less sat for the Bar there.

[DoNotRefill]

66. Wasn't there a boxer who did that?

Every time he wanted a "time out" in the ring, he'd turn his back to the opponent, figuring that the opponent wouldn't hit a guy in the back?

I can see it now..."Yeah, I've got a gun, but I've deliberately turned my back at you so you can't shoot me!" Sounds like a Darwin Award nominee in action to me....

[Forkboy]

65. Threads like this are great

for finding out who NOT to ever take seriously.

[bpilgrim]

69. Smithers, release the hounds

http://kaedrin.com/fun/wav/HOUNDS.WAV

:hi:

peace

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

71. I couldn't have said it any better myself. (Chuckle)

:toast:

[Forkboy]

73. My fav Burns quote

"He's dressed like some sort of free thinking anarchist!"