Gun-owning 'Murican shoots his 14yo stepdaughter after mistaking her for burglar

[Indy Texas]

But let the gun nuts keep telling themselves that all we need is more "good guys with guns."

http://gawker.com/teen-girl-shot-killed-by-stepdad-while-trying-to-sneak-1488771726

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Obviously if she had had a gun of her own to protect herself then this never would've happened.

I'm sure the super pro-gun but also super sensitive about it crowd will respond in horror "HOW DARE YOU MOCK THIS TRAGEDY"... I will stop after you wash that blood off your hands, Sargent Shoot Happy.

I am pro-gun rights.  This man should go to prison for a few years and never touch a gun again in his life.

[Cassius]

So it would have been better if he'd run in and bludgeoned her with a baseball bat. The man should have called out first though... Still, he had no idea that his 14 year old stepdaughter was out? Interesting.

[opebo]

So it would have been better if he'd run in and bludgeoned her with a baseball bat.

Um.. are you being sarcastic?  If not - the answer is 'yes, obviously'.

[7,052,770]

I'm sure the super pro-gun but also super sensitive about it crowd will respond in horror "HOW DARE YOU MOCK THIS TRAGEDY"... I will stop after you wash that blood off your hands, Sargent Shoot Happy.

There's so many of these every day, that no matter when we talk about gun control, there's always a recent tragedy they can accuse us of "exploiting"

[tik 🪀✨]

It is a tragedy, and I bet the guy feels like an enormous piece of sh**t. I cannot even fathom how he must feel.

But as bad as I feel for the shooter, I feel worse for his stepdaughter who now feels nothing. Not sure what I think should be done to make it square.. can you do much of anything? Is jail appropriate if it was truly an accident? At the very least the guy has demonstrated he's irresponsible with firearms and shouldn't be allowed to handle them. Seriously.. I get having a gun to defend yourself, but why do we tolerate people who shoot first and ask questions later even if they are shooting an invader? And what is just about killing someone who is committing a non-violent crime?

[ElectionsGuy]

Pure stupidity.

[Dave from Michigan]

terrible tragedy, you would think you would yell out at them before you shoot or something. What did he just walk in there and start shooting. Also they might have a gun too, if you just walk out there you could get shot. It seems even good people with guns still results in bad things happening.


My friend just bought a handgun for home protection, the mean streets of Canton Michigan. We went to the shooting range Saturday. I rented a handgun at the range, a Glock 19. It was a good time. My friend is probably more the shoot first kind of guy though. He also wants to concealed carry.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Good thing I don't sneak out.

[Indy Texas]

terrible tragedy, you would think you would yell out at them before you shoot or something. What did he just walk in there and start shooting. Also they might have a gun too, if you just walk out there you could get shot. It seems even good people with guns still results in bad things happening.


My friend just bought a handgun for home protection, the mean streets of Canton Michigan. We went to the shooting range Saturday. I rented a handgun at the range, a Glock 19. It was a good time. My friend is probably more the shoot first kind of guy though. He also wants to concealed carry.

Honestly, this isn't even a gun control issue. Stricter gun laws aren't going to stop things like this or like that black woman who got shot on that guy's porch. Gun-owning Americans have a serious attitude problem that is fostered by organizations like the NRA and by the conservative gun-owning culture in general.

They've turned guns from simply being tools into symbols of manliness and power and created this "Hero" mentality that makes guns a weapon of first resort and encourages getting involved in and escalating situations unnecessarily. The standard for what constitutes a "threat" has been defined down to a point where the mere presence of someone on your front porch is now a justifiable license to kill. And the fact that we have law enforcement that we pay taxes for and that is tasked with public order and safety is overlooked so that you have people who are not trained to deal with high-pressure situations doing so instead of deferring to the police.

[All Along The Watchtower]

terrible tragedy, you would think you would yell out at them before you shoot or something. What did he just walk in there and start shooting. Also they might have a gun too, if you just walk out there you could get shot. It seems even good people with guns still results in bad things happening.


My friend just bought a handgun for home protection, the mean streets of Canton Michigan. We went to the shooting range Saturday. I rented a handgun at the range, a Glock 19. It was a good time. My friend is probably more the shoot first kind of guy though. He also wants to concealed carry.

Honestly, this isn't even a gun control issue. Stricter gun laws aren't going to stop things like this or like that black woman who got shot on that guy's porch. Gun-owning Americans have a serious attitude problem that is fostered by organizations like the NRA and by the conservative gun-owning culture in general.

They've turned guns from simply being tools into symbols of manliness and power and created this "Hero" mentality that makes guns a weapon of first resort and encourages getting involved in and escalating situations unnecessarily. The standard for what constitutes a "threat" has been defined down to a point where the mere presence of someone on your front porch is now a justifiable license to kill. And the fact that we have law enforcement that we pay taxes for and that is tasked with public order and safety is overlooked so that you have people who are not trained to deal with high-pressure situations doing so instead of deferring to the police.

I want to say something about how certain segments of working-class, rural, and white American male cultures here intersect, but I am not sure how to articulate it.

[PJ]

Coloradans are still allowed to shoot someone for trespassing on their property. Sad, but even more sad that I'm not surprised.

[morgieb]

The girl should've exercised restraint/personal responsibility.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Honestly, this isn't even a gun control issue.

Agreed.  This isn't a gun control issue.  While the linked article doesn't state what type of gun was used, it easily could have been an ordinary double-barreled shotgun or other hunting weapon. Hence, the only way gun control could have theoretically helped would have been if all guns were banned from home storage.  That's not going to happen without the second amendment being repealed and even if it could happen, it would not be a good idea.

Rather the issue here is what should be the acceptable use of firearms with respect to an unknown intruder within one's home.  Judging from the known timeline, it appears the stepfather called 911 first, tho whether the stepdaughter was outside the home at the time or already in the basement is not stated, likely because the reporters don't know.  In any case, to me the relevant question is, did the stepfather head down into the basement with loaded gun or did he shoot the intruder as ey was coming into the inhabited part of the house.  If it was the former, then he was being stupid, even without  taking into consideration the events that later transpired.  If it was the latter, then at that point the sole question is whether he should have a duty to warn the intruder or not.  I don't think so.  Not unless he could see that the intruder did not have gun of his own, which under the circumstances, before dawn with no lights on in the house, I fail to see how he could have.  Should he perhaps have turned the lights on upstairs, thereby giving him a chance to see and alert the intruder that it might be a good idea to leave?  Maybe.  If it had been an intruder, turning on the lights would have added to the stepfather's risk.

Sorry, progressives.  This is a tragedy, but other than possibly some minor tweaks to home defense laws, this is not a case you can use to advance the need for stricter gun control.

[badgate]

^he could have turned on a light.

[PJ]

Honestly, this isn't even a gun control issue.

Agreed.  This isn't a gun control issue.  While the linked article doesn't state what type of gun was used, it easily could have been an ordinary double-barreled shotgun or other hunting weapon. Hence, the only way gun control could have theoretically helped would have been if all guns were banned from home storage.  That's not going to happen without the second amendment being repealed and even if it could happen, it would not be a good idea.

Rather the issue here is what should be the acceptable use of firearms with respect to an unknown intruder within one's home.  Judging from the known timeline, it appears the stepfather called 911 first, tho whether the stepdaughter was outside the home at the time or already in the basement is not stated, likely because the reporters don't know.  In any case, to me the relevant question is, did the stepfather head down into the basement with loaded gun or did he shoot the intruder as ey was coming into the inhabited part of the house.  If it was the former, then he was being stupid, even without  taking into consideration the events that later transpired.  If it was the latter, then at that point the sole question is whether he should have a duty to warn the intruder or not.  I don't think so.  Not unless he could see that the intruder did not have gun of his own, which under the circumstances, before dawn with no lights on in the house, I fail to see how he could have.  Should he perhaps have turned the lights on upstairs, thereby giving him a chance to see and alert the intruder that it might be a good idea to leave?  Maybe.  If it had been an intruder, turning on the lights would have added to the stepfather's risk.

Sorry, progressives.  This is a tragedy, but other than possibly some minor tweaks to home defense laws, this is not a case you can use to advance the need for stricter gun control.

It depends on whether or not you consider stand-your-ground laws to be within the the big tent issue of "gun control." I do think it's a little barbaric to allow the shooting of trespassers to occur with little to no consequences on the side of the shooter, which is currently the status in Colorado.

[Deus Naturae]

Coloradans are still allowed to shoot someone for trespassing on their property. Sad, but even more sad that I'm not surprised.

How is that sad? Is it likely that the shooter in this case will be protected under that law?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

^he could have turned on a light.

As I said, it was a possibility, but depending on the home layout, he might have given the "intruder" a chance to get a clear shot at him from the still dark basement.

Sorry, progressives.  This is a tragedy, but other than possibly some minor tweaks to home defense laws, this is not a case you can use to advance the need for stricter gun control.

It depends on whether or not you consider stand-your-ground laws to be within the the big tent issue of "gun control." I do think it's a little barbaric to allow the shooting of trespassers to occur with little to no consequences on the side of the shooter, which is currently the status in Colorado.

Once an intruder is inside the home, I have no overall problem with stand your ground laws.  The sole question at that point is how much care does the home defender have to take in making certain that the intruder is indeed an intruder.  Now if the intruder had been outside the home, then I agree, stand your ground should not apply unless the intruder were shooting into the house from outside.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is a tragedy, and I bet the guy feels like an enormous piece of sh**t. I cannot even fathom how he must feel.

But as bad as I feel for the shooter, I feel worse for his stepdaughter who now feels nothing. Not sure what I think should be done to make it square.. can you do much of anything? Is jail appropriate if it was truly an accident? At the very least the guy has demonstrated he's irresponsible with firearms and shouldn't be allowed to handle them. Seriously.. I get having a gun to defend yourself, but why do we tolerate people who shoot first and ask questions later even if they are shooting an invader? And what is just about killing someone who is committing a non-violent crime?

A tragedy?  For whom?  For the girl?  She's dead.  For step-dad?  He shot her.  For the rest of the family? Perhaps.

Being somewhat removed from this, I can't help but thing:  This man is an incredibly cowardly, stupid man.  And as long as we as a nation continue to give guns to incredibly cowardly, stupid men and women... there will be a need to have them to defend ourselves from them.

[tik 🪀✨]

It's awful for everyone connected, especially the step-dad as he has to live with himself and with being the cause of this horrible accident in everyone else's minds. Even if you think he's a terrible person. Perhaps especially.

That's a fact, unless he's actually some kind of psychopath. I have sympathy for him. Sorry.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is a tragedy, and I bet the guy feels like an enormous piece of sh**t. I cannot even fathom how he must feel.

But as bad as I feel for the shooter, I feel worse for his stepdaughter who now feels nothing. Not sure what I think should be done to make it square.. can you do much of anything? Is jail appropriate if it was truly an accident? At the very least the guy has demonstrated he's irresponsible with firearms and shouldn't be allowed to handle them. Seriously.. I get having a gun to defend yourself, but why do we tolerate people who shoot first and ask questions later even if they are shooting an invader? And what is just about killing someone who is committing a non-violent crime?

A tragedy?  For whom?  For the girl?  She's dead.  For step-dad?  He shot her.  For the rest of the family? Perhaps.

Being somewhat removed from this, I can't help but thing:  This man is an incredibly cowardly, stupid man.  And as long as we as a nation continue to give guns to incredibly cowardly, stupid men and women... there will be a need to have them to defend ourselves from them.

Stupid?  Perhaps.  It's easy to rush to judgement given the results, but not particularly wise since we don't know either the full details of what happened in the house or the level of crime in the area.  Cowardly?  It's often a fine line between cowardly and stupidity.  It's a trite saying, but sometimes the best defense is a strong offense.  If it had been a real intruder, then he was acting to protect those who he thought were in his home including his stepdaughter.  He could have stayed in his bedroom and put at risk those who were sleeping elsewhere in the house, but he chose to move to a position where he was the only one at immediate risk from an intruder.

[PJ]

^he could have turned on a light.

As I said, it was a possibility, but depending on the home layout, he might have given the "intruder" a chance to get a clear shot at him from the still dark basement.

Sorry, progressives.  This is a tragedy, but other than possibly some minor tweaks to home defense laws, this is not a case you can use to advance the need for stricter gun control.

It depends on whether or not you consider stand-your-ground laws to be within the the big tent issue of "gun control." I do think it's a little barbaric to allow the shooting of trespassers to occur with little to no consequences on the side of the shooter, which is currently the status in Colorado.

Once an intruder is inside the home, I have no overall problem with stand your ground laws.  The sole question at that point is how much care does the home defender have to take in making certain that the intruder is indeed an intruder.  Now if the intruder had been outside the home, then I agree, stand your ground should not apply unless the intruder were shooting into the house from outside.

The problem is that the shooter is legally protected by stand your ground laws in Colorado, and I believe that would include this circumstance. I don't really believe that you have the right to shoot someone for something as minor as trespassing, especially in cases like this, when it was a misunderstanding and not an actual case of trespassing. But the problem is that even if the shooter is not protected by stand your ground laws in this circumstance, he thought that he was.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

^he could have turned on a light.

As I said, it was a possibility, but depending on the home layout, he might have given the "intruder" a chance to get a clear shot at him from the still dark basement.

Sorry, progressives.  This is a tragedy, but other than possibly some minor tweaks to home defense laws, this is not a case you can use to advance the need for stricter gun control.

It depends on whether or not you consider stand-your-ground laws to be within the the big tent issue of "gun control." I do think it's a little barbaric to allow the shooting of trespassers to occur with little to no consequences on the side of the shooter, which is currently the status in Colorado.

Once an intruder is inside the home, I have no overall problem with stand your ground laws.  The sole question at that point is how much care does the home defender have to take in making certain that the intruder is indeed an intruder.  Now if the intruder had been outside the home, then I agree, stand your ground should not apply unless the intruder were shooting into the house from outside.

The problem is that the shooter is legally protected by stand your ground laws in Colorado, and I believe that would include this circumstance. I don't really believe that you have the right to shoot someone for something as minor as trespassing, especially in cases like this, when it was a misunderstanding and not an actual case of trespassing. But the problem is that even if the shooter is not protected by stand your ground laws in this circumstance, he thought that he was.

Sneaking into someone else's house in the middle of the night is not minor trespassing.  I'm not going to fault the guy too much for thinking he was dealing with a burglar instead of a child breaking curfew.  If it had been a burglar, it sounds like he did what he should have done.  He called 911 first and shot when the intruder came inside the home.  The only relevant question is did he do enough to ascertain whether the intruder was indeed an intruder before he opened fire.  I just don't have enough facts to be able to judge that.