Skip to main content

View Diary: Drunk Teen Fatally Shot For Entering His Neighbor's Home Thinking It Was His Home (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well, if he's that drunk, it may not have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    made a difference.

    We don't know how far along he was--but rationality does tend to go out the window.

    •  THAT drunk is beyond falling-down-on-your-ass (5+ / 0-)

      forget-your-name drunk.

      I've been falling-down-on-my-ass-forget-my-name drunk. I've never been so drunk that a gunshot wouldn't make me freeze. The most I would do is fall down on my ass.

      Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

      by journeyman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:42:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well he was drunk enough to not know it was his (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, noway2

        house.  

        •  True. But that ain't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul1a

          someone-just-shot-a-gun-that-doesn't-mean-anything drunk.

          Which in my humble opinion is somewhere beyond

          I'm-really-drunk-but-not-so-drunk-that-I-can't-break-into-another-person's-house drunk.

          The story related here is that a young man, successfully broke into someone's house, and still didn't have the brains to be afraid of a gunshot.

          Burden of proof lies with that story.

          Null hypothesis is that that story doesn't add up.

          Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

          by journeyman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:17:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Honestly, the burden of proof does not exist with (0+ / 0-)

            the homeowner, at all, when an intruder is shot inside the home.  

             Someone broke into their home and unless state law proves otherwise, the homeowner is not required to investigate who the person is, why they are there or any other means to then decide if the intruder has a right to be breaking into their home at 2am.  They have a right to defend their life and/or property with lethal force....again, unless state law proves otherwise.  

            A warning shot is also not required, I am almost certain.  

    •  Advantage of a dog (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul1a, journeyman

      I'm at the very least skeptical of the story, but there are doubtless some states of mind in which someone wouldn't understand a gun but their hindbrain would know what a snarling predator meant.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:58:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about not understanding a shot. (0+ / 0-)

        But a snarling predator, well, that I concur is beyond even a shot.

        Hell, I once ran into a snorting deer, stone cold sober, on a dark night on a country road. Honestly, I don't know which of us was more scared.

        Anyone with any sense is always at least respectful and probably afraid of wild animals.

        Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

        by journeyman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:49:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site