Texas Boy, 7, dies after shot in in mistaken trespass

[Orrex]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090509/US.Off.Road.Shooting/

This is a very sad story, but I don't know that stricter gun laws would have made a difference. Nor would it have helped if the boy or his father had been armed.

[Buzz Clik]

1. My problem is with the mindset. It's a HUGE problem.

This couple thought that the man and his kids were trespassing and they were protecting their property. We often hear the argument from the rabid pro-gun set that if there were no restrictions on guns at all, that many gun-related tragedies would be averted. The rationale is that the threat of being shot by someone in the crowd would be a deterrent. So, we have this incident where the use of a gun was unreasonable and completely excessive -- even in a gun tolerant state like Texas.

[LWolf]

85. You nailed that one.

The mindset of too many gun advocates is one of aggression, even eagerness, to "defend" themselves. Even when they are not under attack.

[raimius]

115. I think you are referencing two different mindsets.

Mindset 1: The proliferation of fireams amongst non-criminals would have a deterrent effect upon violent criminals, and would provide a fighting chance to victims of violent crime.

Mindset 2: Property rights are important enough to use lethal force in order to protect one's property line, even when no threat has been presented.

I agree with mindset #1, and hate mindset #2. Lethal force should be authorized against illegal, violent attacks. It should not be authorized to defend against property line violations. The law is fairly consistent in supporting the last concept!

Castle Laws are designed to give the benefit of the doubt to those at home. A common notion is that the home owner will probably not know if the invader is armed/willing to attack until it is too late to defend themselves (or nearly so). Therefore, it can be assumed that someone forcing their way into your home may attack you. A defender may not be able to 100% verify if the intruder is armed/ready to attack, since often-times shadows and objects will paritally obscure the intruder. (Still, one should ALWAYS postitively identify the target before firing!)

If the article in the OP was correct in its details, these two WILL face murder charges. They shot people outside of their property AND who posed no threat to them. I know of no law in the US that would excuse this! If the facts are what the article presented, these two SHOULD spend the rest of their lives in prison for murder.

[liberalmuse]

2. Senseless.

Human beings are worth more than property. This is disgusting. And sad. :(

[Lyric]

3. I don't think this is so much about gun restrictions.

It's more an indictment of laws that permit people to shoot trespassers without ascertaining whether or not said trespasser is actually a threat.

"Castle laws" in and of themselves are horrid pieces of anti-human legislation.

[Pullo]

106. The Castle Doctrine won't shield these idiots from murder charges

[Adsos Letter]

4. Further details...

from the Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6414373.html

[marshall]

13. Very strange circumstances all around

It's odd that somebody would be taking a child to swim in a river at 9 PM--but I guess people have all sorts of schedules.
I think it will come down to a question of the property lines--and whether these vehicles were actually on the property of this couple. I wonder if they were on some kind of road or just driving over brush, and whether this was the only way to get to the river. Perhaps the cars were lost, trying to find the river in the dark. And also I wonder how long they gave them after they yelled "Get out" and when the gunfire started. Did they give them time to actually get out? Not that the couple could be trusted to tell the truth--I'm sure they will say they gave them plenty of time to get out, but unless there was a recorder we will never know.

[Nordic65]

52. Who the fuck cares?

You just don't shoot anybody because they're standing in your front yard, invited or not. You just don't do it!

There is absolutely no excuse for this shit. Not even in the third world stinking backwaters of Texas.

This is a first degree murder. Period.

[Adsos Letter]

67. I don't think the law allows the use of firearms, even in self-defense....

unless a person feels that they, or someone else, is in imminent danger; and even then, only commensurate force is allowed.

There is nothing to indicate anything of the sort in this case. These people just lost their cool, and I hope they pay dearly for it.

[imdjh]

107. bingo nt

[panzerfaust]

34. Living in Texas is hard, especially with dirtbags shooting to kill.

Does make me glad that we have the death penalty here in the Lone Star.

[TexasObserver]

43. The death penalty is not an option in this case, so your comment is inapplicable.

It's embarrassing enough that Texas has the death penalty. Even more embarrassing are so called progressives who applaud it.

[Xenotime]

117. Texas knows how to put people in the ground. That much is true.

[Adsos Letter]

66. Assuming that the comments following the article in the Houston Chronicle...

are primarily from people in the area, it is encouraging to note the overwhelming majority are outraged at this incident.

[47of74]

71. If I had a chance to talk with our founding fathers

I would ask them if they intended for this sort of shit to happen when they put the second amendment into the Constitution.

[JonLP24]

84. At what cost?

Considering the number of recently released innocent people in Texas how can you be glad?

Texas is the main death penalty state in the USA, accounting for more than a third of the country’s executions since judicial killing resumed in 1977.(31) Research in the 1980s concluded that in Texas a murder of a white person was more than five times more likely to result in a death sentence than the murder of an African American.(32) Statistics compiled by the Texas Defender Service (TDS) suggest that racial disparities continued into the late 1990s. The organization found, for example, that while 0.8 per cent of murder victims in Texas were white women, 19.3 per cent of the prisoners arriving on death row between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1999 had been convicted of killing white women. Eleven per cent of the defendants condemned to death during this period had been convicted of killing black men. Yet black men accounted for 23 per cent of murder victims in Texas.(33)

TDS also conducted an initial examination of Montgomery County, a Texas jurisdiction where 85 per cent of the population is white. The group looked at murders in the county between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1999. Of the 55 cases, 31 per cent involved non-white victims, none of which resulted in a death sentence. The arrest rate varied according to the race of the victim. In white victim cases, the arrest rate was 92 per cent, in non-white victim cases, the rate was 58 per cent. The rate at which the cases went to trial also varied. Ninety per cent of the cases involving white victims went to trial, whereas only two cases involving non-white victims were tried.

All 17 people against whom Montgomery County prosecutors have successfully sought a death sentence since 1977 were convicted of murdering white victims. They include three black defendants. All three – Glen McGinnis, executed in 2000 for a crime committed when he was 17 years old; Marcus Green sentenced to death in July 2002; and Clarence Brandley, released from death row in 1990 after a judge found that racial discrimination had influenced his prosecution and wrongful conviction – were sentenced by all-white juries.

Of the 301 prisoners put to death in Texas between December 1982 and 10 April 2003, 235 (78 per cent) were executed for crimes involving white victims. In 64 cases (21 per cent), the defendant was an African American convicted of killing a white person. At the time of writing, five of the 12 prisoners scheduled for execution in Texas before the end of July 2003 were African Americans convicted of killing white people.(34) None of the 301 people executed have been whites convicted of killing blacks. In a highly publicized case in 1999, two white men were sentenced to death for killing an African American man, James Byrd, by chaining him to the back of their pickup truck and dragging him to his death. John King and Lawrence Brewer became the first convicted murderers on death row in Texas who were white and whose victim was black. James Byrd’s son has campaigned against their execution, arguing that "all does is bring more hate into the world".(35)
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/046/2003/en/bfe434a5-d712-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/amr510462003en.html
If you find nothing wrong with that then there is something wrong with you.

Also the racial disparity

[marshall]

105. I don't think we have all the details yet

There could be lots more to the story than we know. But assuming the cars were cutting through his yard to simply go for a moonlight swim in the Trinity, it would look bad for the home owners. I remember when I was younger there was a man injured by a shotgun that had been rigged to fire on whoever broke throug ha locked door. The house had broken into numerous time and the trap was set to prevent more breakins. But courts found against the home owner, saying that a groups of Boy Scouts could have sought refuge from a rainstorm and gotten shot (nevermind that they would have had to break the door down to get in).

So it will all come down to the details.

[Callisto32]

119. Katko v. Briney

This is the case that a popular torts text uses as a primer for defense of property. If anybody wants to read it, just type 183 N.W.2d 657 into google and follow the first link. It does a fairly good job of explaining the basics of this area of law, and they are just what you probably think they are.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Mindless assholes with lots and lots of guns...

What could go wrong... :shrug:

[konnichi wa]

9. Do they have lots and lots of guns? The article said one shotgun.

...?

[Skittles]

75. mindless asshole with a gun

[konnichi wa]

6. I won't defend the shooter but I sure can understand his motivation.

The 'off-roaders' from the city bring their noise machines out here to our area, ignore the signs, raise hell day and night, and throw beer cans and other trash all over the place. I wouldn't shoot them but I sure have been tempted.

[Kittycat]

7. Would you be able to identify a 7yo from a grown adult?

And make the conscious decision to shoot-to-kill, and not fire warning shots in the air?

[konnichi wa]

8. I might if it wasn't too dark. But as I said, I wouldn't shoot anyone

regardless of age even though I might be tempted. Was my post unclear?

[Orrex]

19. The "would have been tempted" part was a little unclear

Barring a threat of personal harm to myself or my family, I don't that I "would be tempted" to shoot someone, whether or not I would ever really do it.

[konnichi wa]

28. My bad, I assumed my ability to resist temptation to do something bad was actually good.

Apparently not good enough.

I do realize that some people don't think any response to aggression is appropriate.

[Orrex]

31. Self-defense is generally considered justifiable

as long as the response is appropriate to the threat. Shooting someone in the face for driving an ATV near your property, for instance, is not appropriate.

And the "ability to resist the temptation to do something bad" is indeed good, but in a thread about unprovoked violence, it is perhaps better to speak of not being tempted to commit violence in the first place.

[konnichi wa]

33. You're right...I should have lied and never confessed to the temptation.

(lied by omission, that is)

You know, if those shooter people had been the -victims- of some otherwise unprovoked violence they'd be lionized here instead of demonized and instantly Frist-diagnosed as meth-heads.

[blogslut]

36. And when the news comes out

...that they are, indeed, meth heads, will you admit you were wrong?

They were flying a rebel flag over their house. Should I assume that they are merely the proud descendants of Robert. E. Lee?

[TexasObserver]

46. Another person unclear on the concept.

Not you, but the one to whom you replied. Another "liberal" who doesn't quite understand what the term means, eh? Time will tell when the Pizza Man cometh.

[konnichi wa]

49. Far be it from me to deny you the right to assume anything you want to.

Being found 'correct' after a bigoted suggestion is hardly vindication for doing it to begin with. I frequently see comments on local news forums about tings like home invasions from readers saying "well those guys must be black..." and what do you know, sometimes they actually are. And frequently they are not.

[blogslut]

50. Um, okay

Thanks for the non-answer.

[Orrex]

38. I didn't claim that they're meth-heads, so I'm under no obligation to address that point

However, if they'd been the victims of unprovoked violence, of course they'd be seen in a different light. Do you suggest that the victims and perpetrators of unprovoked violence should be equally lionized?


And it's not that you shouldn't have confessed to the temptation. I would argue that you shouldn't have been tempted to shoot someone for no reason in the first place.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

39. oops

replied to wrong message

[Orrex]

42. You're damn right you did, you lousy good-for-nothing so-and-so!!!!

Oops! Insulted the wrong DUer!

[konnichi wa]

51. Well, I didn't even mention another factor because I didn't want to make more out of it than

it might deserve...which is this: 3 of our neighbors and we ourselves had pet dogs killed one particular night the drunken 4-wheelers were barging loudly around our area. Not before, not since...just that one night.
We admittedly have no proof. Which is why we don't act on the temptations.

[Orrex]

59. So you're tempted to kill someone because some unknown party may or may not have killed three dogs?

I'm not sure how that improves your case.

The bottom line is this: if you're "tempted" to kill someone for approaching close to your property, and if you're still sufficiently self-aware to recognize that such a temptation should not be acted upon, then get yourself some professional help immediately, before the "temptation" becomes too great.

[adamuu]

88. scary n.t.

[konnichi wa]

89. Another Frist.

...
This place is full of remote-sensing experts.

[Orrex]

93. If you don't want people to read what you write, then don't write it.

[Paladin]

90. You've Mentioned That Incident Before.

It's getting pretty obvious that you've put a lot of thought into not acting on those temptations, maybe too much thought. My bet is that you're doing a lot of thinking about what you'll do if and when it happens again. Maybe too much thinking.

And please don't lay that amateur psychiatrist rap on me, OK? A quick glance at our very own DU Gun Dungeon gives more-than-ample proof of this sort of dangerous thinking. On the front page of the Gungeon, there are currently 14 posts dealing with armed citizens shooting intruders. Pretty clear what sort of mindset we're dealing with, here......

[TexasObserver]

44. There was no aggression. They were using a public road.

Two jerks shot people who were legally using a road. Which part of that do you not understand?

[konnichi wa]

53. What part of a general observation is too difficult for you to grasp?

:eyes:
jeezus...

[TexasObserver]

55. You're in the wrong place.

Did you take a left turn when you were supposed to be taking a right turn?

[Paladin]

14. Just Another Sorry Example Of The Fact....

....that no matter how unjustified and tragic the use of a firearm is, there's more than likely a DU gun militant willing to offer some form of support for it. You wouldn't have shot them? Big fucking deal. They were in fact shot, and your empathy for the motivation is reprehensible.....

[konnichi wa]

27. Never mind, it isn't worth it

on edit: I probably should note that I am obviously using hyperbole here just in case anyone doesn't recognize it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

80. Except that isn't the case here

[adamuu]

87. I cannot.

The response was way out of proportion with the insult, if any.

If you're tempted to shoot people who are not threatening you, I strongly suggest you stay away from guns.
...And message boards.

[blogslut]

10. According to that Chron article,

The authorities have yet to search the couple's home. Call me kooky but judging from their booking photos:



There's a meth lab in that house.

[tammywammy]

11. Yep, that's what I'm thinking. n/t

[blogslut]

12. Did you note the wee detail in the Chron article?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6414373.html

Authorities are also working on getting a warrant to search the couple’s home, a small stilt house with a rebel flag. A sign posted in front is scrawled with the warning: “Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will.”

Meth heads. I'd bet the rent.

[MagickMuffin]

76. self delete

someone already posted the pic of house.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

15. Meet the 20%

That is the face of the Republican Party in 2009

[blogslut]

17. You got that right

Racist, uneducated white people who would rather lose themselves in liquor and homemade amphetamines than grow the fuck up and get with the times.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. check out their "house"

Edit: Image Fixed

[blogslut]

26. I read about that in the Chron story

Thanks for the photo verification.

I don't care what the hell the "southern heritage" types say, when people fly that flag in Texas, that means they're damned racists.

[panzerfaust]

37. Neither one is smiling in their booking photo (above)

Ah yes, the Proud flag of the South.

At least they did not reshoot the 'survivers', and they did call 911 - which may have saved someone's life.

[solinvictus]

79. That sign...

..is going to burn them.

[Blue_Tires]

91. wow....Prison is gonna seem like the Four Seasons compared to that...

[Ilsa]

95. Keep in mind: it's about the flag, not the house. The house only

leads me to wonder if these people had a terrible anger problem with being poor or something. Throw them in jail for 20 years or longer. Otherwise, they won't give a damn about what they've done.

[arcadian]

60. Those people are 45 years old?

Definitely meth heads, both look like they are in their 60s. That's a long hard life of partying right there.

[solinvictus]

78. Yeah, "Faces of Meth"

No wonder they were so trigger happy.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

81. I thought that when I saw them, too

Classic "meth look."

[Nay]

111. Yeah, that was my first thought as well. If these ppl aren't methheads,

I'll eat my hat.

[d_b]

114. boom

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. The people who shot him are dipshits

I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent this shooting. But looks like they won't be shooting any more trespassers. Not from behind bars.

[varelse]

18. Interesting - the woman mentions the levee, which is not private property (therefore, not hers)

Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once.

DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."

DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property.

[blogslut]

20. I'm no gun fan

But I believe proper decorum is to shoot in the air as a warning.

These fuckers just wanted to shoot at people. They can rot.

[Orrex]

21. I'd say that's about right

Unless the "trespasser" constituted an actual personal threat, they had no justification for shooting at, even if they'd posted a sign, and even if the person had in fact been trespassing on their property.

[varelse]

23. The guns don't do the shooting

yet anyway. We do now have drones killing villagers in Pakistan, so the future isn't clear, but for now, a person has to pull the trigger for a gun to kill or injure someone.

[blogslut]

24. I agree

I was just pointing out that a truly righteous gun owner would fire into the air.

[Statistical]

29. No. Lawfully you should not shoot period.

Most states provide no "lesser" burden of proof to draw down or fire warning shot.

If you fire into the air (remember all bullets come down) or more safely into a solid object and the situation doesn't meet the requirements for use of deadly force then you just committed a felony.

If they were that worried they should have kept weapon ready (no shots, not even warning shots) and called 911 FIRST.

If situations changed before LEO arrived in that lethal force was justified then shoot.

9 times out of 10 warnings shots are a horrible idea.
Either you were never justified in using deadly force (and warning shot or even drawing weapon IS DEADLY FORCE)

OR
The situation required more than a warning shot.

Add in the risk to 3rd party and warning shots are just bad idea.

[blogslut]

30. Thanks for the info

I was going by the cowboy code.

Personally, I'll leave the gunfire to people who own guns. They're not my bag.

[Lorien]

103. They had a sign on their property which stated that they would shoot

trespassers and then smile about it (I can't recall the exact wording; the English was pretty mangled though). IMHO these two were just sitting out there waiting for an opportunity.

[TXRAT2]

112. But I believe proper decorum is to shoot in the air as a warning.

The proper thing to do is call law enforcement. Discharging a firearm in the air could amount to other charges.

[jazzjunkysue]

22. Area residents frequently ride around the levy on four-wheelers."

"The road where the victims were shot cuts between the Muhses’ house and the levee. Investigators say the public has access to the road and the levee.

Area residents frequently ride around the levy on four-wheelers."

I don't know where to start.

1. Why do residents ride around the levy on 4 wheelers?
2. Why do you feel threatened by people who are 40 meters away?
3. How do you shoot a boy in the face? If you could see his face, you shouldn't be threatened.
4. What kind of drugs are these people on?
5. How long will it take for the next idiot to drive around looking for another idiot to shoot him?
6. Will anyone ever get it that you can't kill someone who's 40 meters away unless you have a gun? A steak knife won't do the job.
7. If these people lived in a stilt house, and had very little, why on earth would anyone want to "break in" and threaten them?

[uncle ray]

61. there is only two idiots involved.

the people in jeeps are not idiots as you say. they were people partaking is some outdoor recreation. riding in jeeps, 4 wheelers or whatever may not be your preferred kind of recreation, but it should not be a death sentence for the kid.

[LooseWilly]

74. I think it's obvious that the shotgun couple was just looking to bolster the arguments of the NRA.

After all, if the family out 4-wheeling had been armed, they could've returned fire, potentially saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial...
:sarcasm:

Or maybe it was just some marriage counseling gone awry... "the family that shoots at strangers near their property together... stays together..."
:sarcasm:

Is it just me?, or does the handing off of the shotgun from wife to husband (if I remember the story details aright), so that he too could fire the gun.... that act in itself eliminates the idea of self-defense... all other points of stupidity (like the targets were on public land) aside.

[aikoaiko]

32. It appears the Muhs couple fucked up and they need to pay dearly for it.

I doubtful that Texas law would consider mere trespassing a justifiable cause for lethal force (although I could be wrong). Either way, the riders apparently weren't trespassing and Muhs should go to jail if the facts hold up.

[TexasObserver]

47. These two will spend the remainder of their lives in prison.

They won't make bail, either.

[mainegreen]

35. Death penalty.

This is why I support it.

For cases where there is no chance you've got the wrong people, and no point in rehabilitation.

Murdering kids = No longer welcome in society.
Not even in our prisons.

Yes I know this is not a popular view, and no I don't care. I thinks its a moral imperative to remove people like this.

[TexasObserver]

48. Well, that's asinine, since the death penalty won't be invoked.

And when it is invoked, it still doesn't do anything positive.

[JonLP24]

86. For aggravated assault? In Texas there are well documented problems with the DP

But for aggravated assault? If we start handing out DP for those convictions we will be heading down a slippery slope.

Texas

Texas is the main death penalty state in the USA, accounting for more than a third of the country’s executions since judicial killing resumed in 1977.(31) Research in the 1980s concluded that in Texas a murder of a white person was more than five times more likely to result in a death sentence than the murder of an African American.(32) Statistics compiled by the Texas Defender Service (TDS) suggest that racial disparities continued into the late 1990s. The organization found, for example, that while 0.8 per cent of murder victims in Texas were white women, 19.3 per cent of the prisoners arriving on death row between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1999 had been convicted of killing white women. Eleven per cent of the defendants condemned to death during this period had been convicted of killing black men. Yet black men accounted for 23 per cent of murder victims in Texas.(33)

TDS also conducted an initial examination of Montgomery County, a Texas jurisdiction where 85 per cent of the population is white. The group looked at murders in the county between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1999. Of the 55 cases, 31 per cent involved non-white victims, none of which resulted in a death sentence. The arrest rate varied according to the race of the victim. In white victim cases, the arrest rate was 92 per cent, in non-white victim cases, the rate was 58 per cent. The rate at which the cases went to trial also varied. Ninety per cent of the cases involving white victims went to trial, whereas only two cases involving non-white victims were tried.

All 17 people against whom Montgomery County prosecutors have successfully sought a death sentence since 1977 were convicted of murdering white victims. They include three black defendants. All three – Glen McGinnis, executed in 2000 for a crime committed when he was 17 years old; Marcus Green sentenced to death in July 2002; and Clarence Brandley, released from death row in 1990 after a judge found that racial discrimination had influenced his prosecution and wrongful conviction – were sentenced by all-white juries.

Of the 301 prisoners put to death in Texas between December 1982 and 10 April 2003, 235 (78 per cent) were executed for crimes involving white victims. In 64 cases (21 per cent), the defendant was an African American convicted of killing a white person. At the time of writing, five of the 12 prisoners scheduled for execution in Texas before the end of July 2003 were African Americans convicted of killing white people.(34) None of the 301 people executed have been whites convicted of killing blacks. In a highly publicized case in 1999, two white men were sentenced to death for killing an African American man, James Byrd, by chaining him to the back of their pickup truck and dragging him to his death. John King and Lawrence Brewer became the first convicted murderers on death row in Texas who were white and whose victim was black. James Byrd’s son has campaigned against their execution, arguing that "all does is bring more hate into the world".(35)
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/046/2003/en/bfe434a5-d712-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/amr510462003en.html

Me personally I can't trust a system designed and ran by humans to have no errors. Our constitution says no "cruel and unusual" punishment, I can't think of anything more cruel then killing. I'd rather have them waterboarded, atleast they won't lose their chance to prove their innocence.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. by the sounds of it, the parents let their kids piss infront of the shack

That certainly doesn't justify shooting anybody, but I can see a car load of people pissing in front of your house upsetting.

Parents who just let their kids piss virtually anywhere really get on my nerves.

[uncle ray]

62. maybe they should have approached the house

and asked to use the bathroom.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. or found a wal-mart, mcdonalds or any bush not at the end of a driveway

There is no possible justification for shooting them. But you can only expect some sort of negative reaction in such a situation.

[datasuspect]

92. the nearest retail is 10-20 miles in any direction in that area

it is rural texas.

woods, rivers, and lots of guns.

most of the quik sack type stores anywhere on FM 1409 would probably have been closed by then. the nearest population center is along US 90 through Liberty and Dayton, or Mont Belvieu on I-10. I-10 has gas stations in Mont Belvieu.

people routinely enjoy the waterways and back roads in these areas. the victims were not doing anything untoward, illegal, or in violation of anyone's property.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

82. It was a small child peeing, and it wasn't right in front of their house

Your use of "pissing" is noted, and I also note why you used it.

Posters know I am a firm advocate of RTBA, but this is fucked up, and so are people trying to defend it.

[NutmegYankee]

116. Use of "pissing" is noted???

Seriously, why don't you inform a New Englander what you mean by the use is noted. This is the land of pisser meaning awesome. as in - The Sox game last night was wicked pisser.

[TexasObserver]

41. This is a case of murder by a couple of river rats.

They shot at people who were legally using a road.

The two perps were probably methed up. I saw a photo of one of them, and he looked like he was still high.

[konnichi wa]

54. Thank you, Doctor Frist

for that most excellent and professional diagnosis.

[TexasObserver]

56. Sure thing, Mr. Limbaugh.

Enjoy your time here, such as it is.

[Nordic65]

58. Care to defend shooting one kid dead because of trespassing?

Just not doable.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

83. They are meth heads -- no ome has to be "Frist"

I'm a RTBA advocate, and no way would I EVER defend these murderers like some on here.

[EFerrari]

72. No kidding. They also were defending a levee that wasn't theirs.

Sure sounds like meth to me.

[TexasObserver]

77. True. There wasn't even color of law to support their shooting.

They were annoyed by nearby vehicular activity on a public road and public levee, and shot at them because of it. Sure sounds like something a person high on speed might do.

[AlinPA]

45. Maybe they thought a "shoot first" law or castle law will justify their shooting.

[slackmaster]

97. If they thought that, they were very, very wrong

You can't shoot someone for simply trespassing, even in Texas.

[Catherine Vincent]

57. I just read the little boy has died.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6414373.html



:cry:

[HughMoran]

63. "Authorities are considering upgrading the charge to murder or capital murder"

I sure hope so - stupid rednecks shooting passers by with a shotgun - how Wild West of them :(

[HughMoran]

64. "Four people, including another child, were shot."

The more I read, the more infuriated I get.

[47of74]

73. Fuck...this guy obviously swims in the shallow end of the gene pool!

[HughMoran]

65. Look at these rednecks.

[Catherine Vincent]

68. I saw the pics but I rather see a pic of that precious 7 year old than those 2 gun nuts

The chron hasn't shown it yet.

[slackmaster]

98. They're not gun nuts

They're murderers.

[SoCalNative]

108. Why do I hear the theme from Deliverance

when I look at their pics?

[d_b]

109. damn those guys are ugly

[baldguy]

69. When people think its acceptable to meet the world first with a weapon, innocents must be killled.

Things like this will always happen until gun owners take responsibility for their hobby.

[L0oniX]

94. Your post is part of an on going effort to divide DU and the Dem party.

Over 50% of DU members own guns. It's easy, cheap and unbalanced (like Fox) to post only stories about the improper use of a gun. There are plenty of good examples of people using defense weapons for good reason. Google "gun defense" and see for your selves but I doubt you will because it's so satisfying to play Chicken Little ..."Oh no ...people are using guns improperly."

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here's a few of many examples of people defending themselves with a gun:

May 8, 2009 South Bend Tribune
http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090508/NEWS01/905080347
Witness halts fleeing driver after two Mishawaka girls struck. The driver reportedly attempted to flee, but was stopped at gunpoint by a man who witnessed the accident.

May 7, 2009 Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/787434.htm
Man pulls gun in self-defense on group of harassing teenagers. <snip> the young adults had in fact been harassing the man and that he pulled a weapon from his vehicle for protection

May 6, 2009 Racine County Journal Times
Biker scares away robbers with gun <snip> The man pulled a Smith and Wesson revolver from his side holster, pointed it at the sky and yelled, “Gun!” The four suspects ran

Yep ...it's easy to post the sensational.

[MajorChode]

96. And you consider yourself "balanced"?

The OP made no judgment calls and even clearly stated his opinion that stricter gun laws would have made no difference.

So where the hell is the division in which you speak? Perhaps you simply can't bear the thought of someone posting a story about an idiot's use of a gun.

[L0oniX]

99. The idiot's use of a gun is all that ever gets posted. Thanks for helping that cause.

[MajorChode]

100. Just a few I found in a span of about 30 seconds

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x220211

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x212466

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5401884

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x153457

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x217823

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x153076

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3763160

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x58925

You may now thank me for proving you wrong.

[L0oniX]

101. I see I should have clarified ...in GD.

[MajorChode]

102. So it's not enough now that you have a soapbox to post such anecdotes?

Two of the posts were in GD, so obviously you didn't even check the ones I posted very well, and I'm sure I wouldn't have too much difficulty finding more.

Anymore "clarifications" you wish to offer?

[L0oniX]

104. I would clarify what I think of you but it would just get deleted.

[varelse]

113. I disagree that the poster's intent is to divide us

or divide the Democratic party. The division already exists - in fact it is decades old now, and this poster is not responsible for creating it.

Additionally, one doesn't need to be a gun control advocate to be appalled by this particular story. Supporters of the 2nd amendment and most responsible, law abiding gun owners would be equally concerned, although our focus might be somewhat different.

Apparently, not even the "castle" law will protect this couple, because the circumstances surrounding the shooting, and their own behaviour do not indicate self defense as a motive.

[benEzra]

120. Even if self-defense *were* the motive, the Castle Doctrine would not apply

because the Castle Doctrine applies to defense against criminal home invasions, not trespassers (and the victims here weren't even trespassing).

[pasto76]

110. Positive Identification of target is REQUIRED

in all cases. Even gun nuts when pressed will admit firing upon somethign you cannot identify is not responsible.

[benEzra]

121. Exactly.

And while I take exception to the "gun nut" insult, being sure of your target is one of the most basic rules of gun safety (Rule Four of the Four Rules):

1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Always be sure of your target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety

In addition to their cluelessness of the most basic principles of firearms handling, these two individuals also displayed a stunning ignorance of Texas law, and a callous disregard for human life.

[RamboLiberal]

118. I don't think anyone has posted a pic of the victim