Haunted House Shooting

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by wolf

Ohio's Castle Doctrine law is still in committee.

Well, this should add an interesting item to it's discussion.

What happens to someone breaking into a house is one thing. Shooting towards the street is public endangerment no matter what you are shooting at. If someone steps onto the grass in front of a house to avoid bumping into someone on the sidewalk, or walks on the grass because there is no sidewalk, are they automatically a target?

I am in full support of the Castle Doctrine... but I have not seen anything here that shows that he felt threatened in any way.
Also, if you are worried about someone on your property, what is the point of shooting out their tires? Don't you want them to leave?
If they are in the car and you want to scare them, shoot into the ground... or better yet, don't do anything and just wait for them to leave while calling the cops.
People are idiots.

[Shawnee123]

This is the dude:
Attachment 9627 (Edit: guess when I copied I got the pic of the girl too. Unintentional)

Excerpts from another article:

Allen S. Davis, a 40-year-old man who lives at the house with his mother, said during a jailhouse interview that he was defending his home.

He admitted opening fire from his first-floor bedroom window after hearing the girls outside around 10 p.m. He said he repeatedly fired shots from a .22-caliber rifle.

"Did they threaten me?" he said. "No.

"I didn’t know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you’re going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Police said the girls were mischievous, but they weren’t even close to the house and hadn’t harassed Davis or his mother, Sondra, when he opened fire.

Two of the girls stayed in the car while the other three started up the concrete walk to the Davis home. They didn’t get far before turning around.

"One of the girls honked the horn to scare them," Francis said.

After they all were back in the car, the girls heard what they thought were firecrackers, but was gunfire instead. They made the mistake of circling the block, Francis said.

Davis said he fired again as they returned.

"To the best of my knowledge, that did the trick," he said. His mother, he said, was asleep upstairs, and he didn’t learn he’d hit someone until police arrived later.

Police said no one got out of the car the second time the girls drove past. They discovered that Barezinsky, in the front passenger seat, was shot as they drove off. The panicked girls headed for N. High Street, where they found police.

"I regret that (Barezinsky was shot)," he said. "However, I would ask, why was that teenage girl engaging in delinquent behavior?"

He said he and his mother didn’t notify police of the ongoing harassment because of their poor relationship with the city.

From jail, her son laughed at the legend that had brought five girls to his home.

"Wow, a haunted house, huh?

"Wow."

Dispatch staff reporterDean Narciso contributed to this story.

If you ask me, it's just another loser Norman Bates type who has no spine so he used a gun.

When I was young we drove by Crazy Mary's house once. She was glaring at us from the door. We just wanted to check the place out (she had hundreds of old toys, garden implements, etc hanging from her trees.) We didn't get out of the car, wouldn't have anyway, and drove off.

Kids are curious. Some adults are psycho.

[Shawnee123]

So you see, the girls were merely driving by the second time when he opened fire. Can you say GIANT LOSER?

[mrnoodle]

Is this where I'm supposed to rant about gun control? K.

He had the right to own a gun unless he was a felon or something. They might take it away now that he is alleged to have used it irresponsibly. Woot, America!

There are 2 lessons to be taken from this sad story:

1. You don't have the right to mess around with other people's stuff. This means you can't randomly visit their property in the middle of the night unless you are invited to do so.

2. If in the course of doing something stupid you find yourself injured or killed, it's nobody's fault but yours. The fact that a large percentage of the public will sympathize with you and try to blame the incident on any and every possible alternative cause doesn't change one fundamental truth:

You were doing something idiotic; that's why you got shot/eaten/run over/poisoned/diseased/drowned.

Instead of gun control, let's talk about self control.

[Shawnee123]

So you never did anything silly when you were a kid?

So the guy has a right to shoot repeatedly as the car DROVE BY later?

I say take his gun and shove it up his pimply-faced, momma-livin', never-had-a-friend-because-he's-so-creepy, my-gun-is-my-penis ass.

The right to bear arms comes with a certain responibility to use it wisely; he admitted he didn't feel threatened.

Hell, I could feel threatened just looking at that fuck head, but I wouldn't shoot him over it.

[zippyt]

he is a fucking Idiot !!!!!!!
A) they were NOT on his property ,
B) they were NOT threatening him , his mother , or their property
C) he is a FUCKING PSYCO that NEEDS to be sent away for a LONG time !!!

[glatt]

The Columbine kids were picked on until they snapped. I bet this guy is cut from the same cloth.

I think it's entirely possible that he has had to deal with a lot of people treating him poorly based just on his looks, and that has made him less tolerant of delinquents fucking with him. He says that this has been a recurring problem.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I say take his gun and shove it up his pimply-faced, momma-livin', never-had-a-friend-because-he's-so-creepy, my-gun-is-my-penis ass.

You should judge him for his actions, not based on how he looks. It's that kind of treatment from others that led to this.

He was wrong to shoot these girls. He belongs in jail. But we shouldn't be surprised that this happened. mrnoodle makes a lot sense here.

The lesson here is: don't repeatedly pick on someone because they are different and then be surprised when they snap.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by zippyt

he is a fucking Idiot !!!!!!!
A) they were NOT on his property ,
B) they were NOT threatening him , his mother , or their property
C) he is a FUCKING PSYCO that NEEDS to be sent away for a LONG time !!!

A) the article says they were
B) he says they didn't threaten him directly, but that he didn't know their intentions, either. As the only person in this scenario who was minding his own damn business, he deserves to be heard out.
C) So, is that your perception, or a fact? Making snap decisions about people's intentions seems to be the order of the day...


One of my elderly relatives lives in a house in the woods in Mississippi, on the same "hill" as his brothers and sisters. He's delusional, and thinks that black people are always sneaking around his house leaving trash on the porch and trying to steal things. They aren't, of course. But if someone ever decided to skulk around that place at night -- for whatever reason -- they would get shot at. If they were particularly unlucky, he might even hit what he was aiming for, although this is an exceptionally rare occurrence.

Is he nuts? Probably. Racist? As the day is long. Armed? Without question. It seems like it would be a bad idea to rustle the bushes around his house, regardless of his criminal culpability in whatever happens next.

Those kids were where they weren't supposed to be, and something bad happened. That's not an excuse for shooting people, it's a case study in cause and effect.


Edit:
ATTENTION PEOPLE WHO LACK COMPREHENSION SKILLS:
mrnoodle did not justify the shooting. He simply noted that people who drive around the block, honk the horn, walk up to people's houses, and act like idiots in the wee hours of the night are probably going to find trouble somewhere, and are not free from responsibility for their actions.

Edit 2:
CLARIFICATION:
The weird guy who shot a .22 out of his bedroom window to scare away a carload of teenagers is also an idiot. I repeat, the shooter was wrong.

Edit 3:
So, I'm not in favor of people getting shot.

K?

[Shawnee123]

[quote=mrnoodle]
A) the article says they were
B) he says they didn't threaten him directly, but that he didn't know their intentions, either. As the only person in this scenario who was minding his own damn business, he deserves to be heard out.
C) So, is that your perception, or a fact? Making snap decisions about people's intentions seems to be the order of the day...QUOTE]


A) the article said they had gone partway into his yard, then ran back to the car. When he shot at them they were driving by in their car.
B) and C) So, the snap decisions of a guy putting bullets in kid's heads is OK, but us supposing he's a nut is not? Good thing I don't go around shooting people I perceive to be bonkers.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Good thing I don't go around shooting people I perceive to be bonkers.

Unless they're in your house. Then, I recommend as large a caliber as you can handle accurately and safely. There are probably local firearm safety classes that can help you with any questions you might have.

Oh, unless you live in a country where The Government Has Done Something About The Gun Problem.

In that case, you're already perfectly safe.



Oh, did you guys hear about the guy who was swimming around with what should have been a harmless stingray and got stabbed in the heart? Something's got to be done about stingray barbs before more innocents are lost.

[Shawnee123]

They weren't in his house, numnuts.

[Shawnee123]

I never would have judged him based on his looks alone had his actions not been those of a crazed lunatic. The fact that he is a freak was just a bonus. Snapped? That's why he was laughing in jail about the girls thinking the place was haunted? Yeah, really funny. Funny, funny stuff.

I know...he's just different, just has his own points of view. Let's make him a cop!

Also, the Columbine kids had the common decency to shoot themselves.

Justifiable because he was "picked on"? Wah. Give me a fucking break.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Justifiable because he was "picked on"? Wah. Give me a fucking break.

Where did I say it was justifiable?

I said he belonged in jail for this.

[Shawnee123]

OK, you are correct, you never said it was justifiable. But you agreed with the noodle, who said as much.

(I realize this is going to turn into one of those typical cellar semantics arguments, which is why I am conceding that I turned your words around. However, I still contend that you are implying that somehow the girls got what they ought to have expected. Because the guy was picked on? Because, since the beginning of time, teenagers act a little crazy sometimes? Sorry, that just doesn't hold water with me.)