shooting (600x307)

Girl Lies About Boy She Snuck Into Bedroom, Dad Kills Boy (VIDEO)

Posted by Joe Trotter • 14 Mar 2014

Teenage girl’s dishonesty leads to tragic death

Follow TLR on Google+

SPRING, TX – A 55-year-old Texas father shot and killed a teenage boy after the man’s daughter snuck the boy into the house but denied knowing the boy when confronted by her father.

Eventually, the daughter confessed that she had brought the teenage boy into the house.

It all began when the girl’s younger brother noticed feet sticking out from her bed.  The son went and told the father, who grabbed a pistol and went to investigate.   The 17-year-old began arguing with the father after the daughter denied knowing the teenager.

According to reports, the teen ignored the father’s commands and suddenly reached for something, prompting the father to shoot the boy, who was pronounced dead at the scene.




  • Cole Johnson

    Wait, they hadn’t lived in the area for a week and she’s already sleeping with presumably a a guy she hasn’t known for a week?

  • VL123

    A black father for once protecting his teenage daughter. Too bad it ended in tragedy.

  • http://www.lemonparty.org BallsYeah

    This girls neck should be popped for her dishonesty. She will lie in the future and it could lead to someone else getting locked up or shot.

  • Mike Casey

    Was he trying to attack the father? I feel like something’s missing from this story…

  • James Synkgar

    a woman lying and getting a man in trouble? thats new.

  • Mark Stuber

    Not that I agree that “reaching for something” rises to the
    level of a credible imminent threat however, how believable is it
    that a clean cut strait A 17 year old who had a gun pointed at him by
    an angry father, would suddenly “reach for something” if he
    had no weapon to reach for?

    • Mark

      I was thinking the same thing. However, if I was the shooter and truly believed the 17 year old was an intruder, I would have without regret blown his head off without needing an excuse like “lowering his hands as if to reach for something”

  • John Doe

    This girl lied and it got a man killed. When are you men going to wake up and stop trusting anything a woman says? Women are incapable of being honest.

    You could very well be the next man who gets killed or arrested because some woman lied about you or made a false accusation against you.

    American women are evil monsters. Islamic Shariah is probably the only solution to feminism. These bitches need to literally be enslaved, they cannot handle freedom.

  • Abigail Moreno

    Why not just call the cops and let them shoot him?

    • Mark Stuber

      Good point, Abigail

  • PeterAndrewNolan

    The girl lied. This was the cause of the father firing thinking that it was an unkown intruder.

    Western women are incapable of being honest in the 99.9%+ majority.

    Western women lie in the family courts, nothing happens.

    They make false rape allegations? Nothing happens.

    They make false DV/Sexual Harassment allegations? Nothing happens.

    So why would this girl not think she can lie and get away with it when 99.9%+ of the other women around her have taught her that lying is how you get what you want or how you get out of trouble.

    Until women are held accountable for their perjury in courts men should expect more women to lie when confronted with a problem or to get their own way.

    • Mark Stuber

      You’re making a big assumption: “thinking that it was an unkown intruder.” He didn’t even say that is why he fired. He said he fired because the kid, “reached for something.”

  • Josh Rayborn

    I feel bad for the kid, but he should have left.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      Josh. The boy had a gun pointed at him with a trigger happy man on the other end. How is he supposed to “leave”?

    • Mark Stuber

      Well, if he wasn’t dressed, he had no way of leaving unless he wanted to leave naked or god forbid, “reach for something.”

  • http://www.barackobozo.com/ Barack_Obozo

    The girl needs to be bought up on manslaughter, she knew what her father was capable of doing, that’s why she lied. Book her make an example of her, women and girls be held accountable for their actions.

    • Mark Stuber

      No, the girl needs to be told she can get rid of her asshole dad for years if she tells the grand jury the truth. That the kid was not reaching for anything in a threatening way and maybe even at that point the dad knew who the kid was.

  • Mark Stuber

    “The father says he shot the boy when the teen dropped his hands as if to grab for something.” From Channel 5 Dallas Fort Walton’s Website. I don’t think dropping the hands warrants an imminment threat of deadly force. Maybe, raising one’s hands. I think the dad wanted to shoot that kid.

  • Phil Gwinn

    Based only on what I have read here and seen in the video I think it’s obvious that the father was acting in good faith to defend his home and family.

    It is a real tragedy that the boy died. It is almost as big a tragedy that the girls lie directly led to his death. She is going to have to live with that for a long time.

    I pity the boys family. They have gone thru a shock no parent should ever have to bear.

    • Mark Stuber

      “reaching for something” I think if he was really in fear, his memory would be clearer than that.

      • Phil Gwinn

        Most people, both military and civilian, attempting to remember specifics of traumatic events in my experience are either hyper-precise or hyper fuzzy. So I don’t have issue with his “reaching for something” recollection.

        • Mark Stuber

          Good point. I was making the classic mistake of assuming everyone is just like me. I remember in hpyer-detail. Thank goodness there will be more than one person on that Grand Jurry.

          • Phil Gwinn

            I’m that way also. It used to really tick me off when normally stellar Marines could not remember specific details right after the fact. It wasn’t that they did the wrong thing in any way either.

            A doc explained that their brain focused on the here/now to recognize a danger and determine an immediate action. Details were not prioritized as part of that decision process.

            I asked about those of us who remembered in detail. He said we were weird. LOL

            • Mark Stuber

              lol I’ve never experienced anything that scary save traffic accidents. I just remember a few times in sports everything slowing down and in a few fist fights.

              • Phil Gwinn

                That’s exactly the kind of life a man should lead. It’s too bad that politics and other people get to screw that up. Good for you.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      Phil,
      “She is going to have to live with that for a long time”

      Women could not care less when men die due to their lies. Look how many men commit suicide in the family courts due to women lying. No one cares about those men. Indeed no one cares about men at all. We are disposable less then human beings.

      And that is exactly what I am telling young men. That no one will ever care about them as people and that they are disposable sub-human beings. The lads are listening because they can see the truth of what I am saying.

      After all? My ex lied her head off in affidavits in the family courts more than 6 years ago now. No one cared that my children were kidnapped. No one cared that my house was stolen. No one cared my business was destroyed.

      Men are just supposed to let women lie and us men suffer the consequences. And that is what I am telling the young men. They can make up their own minds as to what they will do with that information.

  • Christopher Michael Moore

    If any charges are brought forward, they should be on the daughter, who could have just told the truth. She lied, the kid, feeling desperate due to the lie, moved in a desperate manner, prompting the father to shoot. It is her fault. I’m not sure, but I believe it would be manslaughter.

    • Mark Stuber

      Charge her with what? Lying?

      • Robert Johnson

        Reckless endangerment, child endangerment, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter, conspiracy to commit culpable negligent manslaughter… I don’t know what’s available in Texas. But I’m sure there’s plenty to charge her with if they had the will to do so.

        • Mark Stuber

          and who would be the co-conspirator? It would only have been reckless if she knew her father was a hot head. Those charges may even get throne out by a judge before it made it to a jury. Any first year law student could defend against those charges, sucessfully, in their sleep.

          • Robert Johnson

            Keep going, Mark. I’m sure she’ll eventually Google herself here, read your comments and fall madly in sex with you.

            • Mark Stuber

              So, that’s how you react when you are embarrassed. Rather than try to explain how there could be a conspiracy of one or just admit to having a brain fart, you attempt to distract from your previous absurd comment via a distasteful ad hominem attack.

              • Robert Johnson

                I skimmed through the rest of your comments here and saw that that would be a waste of time.

                • Mark Stuber

                  That’s right, because you know I will call you out on when you talk out of your ass, use logical fallacies, and use other dishonest debating tactics.

            • Mark Stuber

              Her name is never mentioned in the article or this thread, stupid. That’s about as dumb as press conspiracy charges for an alleged conspiracy of one.

  • Raven Mare

    Stupid ass hot head father

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      The girl lied. That is what got the boy killed.

      • Mark Stuber

        No. I lied some when I was a teenager. I don’t remember anyone getting killed as a result. What killed the boy was an adult male aimed a loaded gun at his chest and pulled the trigger.

        • yourmathteacher

          What killed the boy was being stupid enough to sneak into a house in Texas in the middle of the night. His momma must never have warned him that a Texas daddy is Hell-bent on protecting his family from a perceived threat and will SHOOT YOU.

          • Mark Stuber

            No. What killed the boy was a supposed adult pointed a loaded firearm at his chest and pulled the trigger. I’m sure hundreds of teenage girls sneak their boyfriends in every day without it resulting in death.

            • yourmathteacher

              Put yourself in the shoes of a protective father (if you can). Your young child wakens you at 2 in the morning because he went into his sisters room and saw feet sticking out from under the bed. The area around Houston has seen an uptick in home-invasions and rapes lately, so you take your gun and get there as quick as you can. You confront a male who was hiding under your daughter’s bed, whom she claims not to know. You tell him not to move while you call the police. The intruder, who for all you know has broken into your teenage daughter’s room and hidden under the bed in the middle of the night, argues and then reaches for something, you know not what. By the way, you’re disabled. Did you know the dad was disabled and vulnerable? Bet you didn’t. Anyhow, what would YOU do in that situation?

  • Gena Surratt

    I have a question for anyone who cares to answer. If dad didn’t have a gun, what do you think he would have done? I want to assume he would have called the police.

    • KevinJ

      He did call the police.

  • KevinJ

    Here you go retards… “Although a grand jury will review the case, prosecutor Warren Diepraam said it is unlikely that the father will be charged.”

    • Mark Stuber

      Did Warren Diepraam elaborate?

  • http://cynicalinny.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Wow we got some fucked up discussion in this thread; moralist busy bodies screaming that the family is dysfunctional and that the daughter is a whore and race baiting loser paleocons.

    The father acted on the information that his daughter provided which was that she didn’t know they guy. So the father thinks “this guy is trying to do something to my daughter” the guy makes the wrong move in reaching for something so the father acted accordingly.

    If anything the daughter can be prosecuted for wrongful death by giving her father false information. Which resulted in this guy being killed

    • Ron Stokes

      Exactly.

  • http://facebook.com/betteroffdamned Better Off Damned

    The framing of this story as being the fault of daughter is disgusting. Gee, I wonder who fostered an environment where she felt so fearful over having been discovered with a boy that she felt like she needed to lie. Prosecute this father.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      “The framing of this story as being the fault of daughter is disgusting.”

      The girl lied causing the boys death. You women always call the truth “disgusting”. But you do not refute the truth. You can’t.

      • Mark Stuber

        What did the dad say the reseason was he shot the kid. It wasn’t becasue he was an “intruder,” It was because he “reached for something.”

        • PeterAndrewNolan

          Hi Mark,
          The story says “According to reports, the teen ignored the father’s commands and suddenly reached for something”

          This is standard propaganda in these cases Mark. Blame the male for bringing on his own death. We do not know what happened. It could well be the boy did nothing and the man just shot him cold and made up the “he reached for something”.

          Take that case recently where a female police officer shot a boy to death when he answered the front door with a Wii controller in his hand. The female cop shot him to death where he stood, right in the chest. And then she claimed she thought he had a gun.

          When it is a boy it is shoot first and ask questions later because boys are sub human animals and we all know it.

          • Mark Stuber

            You’re right. This seems to happen a lot to unarmed teenage boys.

  • ScarletPimpernil

    A landlord came to my house one day and started screaming and yelling at me. It was bad enough his spittle hit me. I, calmly, walked over, picked up a baseball bat and swung it at his head, stopping inches from his face. I informed him it was time to leave and if he continued to mess with me, I’d assume he was going to lunge and I’d crush his head. He yelled “[y]ou’d go to jail.” My response was: “[y]ou’ll still be dead.” That was the end of the conversation.

    You don’t aggressively argue with someone pointing a gun at you, or who, otherwise, can take you out. That’s just plain stupid.

    The foregoing aside, it is sad this happened. However, if the kid did start getting aggressive, he fell to his own stupidity and arrogance.

    • Mark Stuber

      So, are you arguing that because you held a weapon and your land lord didn’t, you had rights he did not?

      You had a right to kill him for saying things you didn’t like just because you were holding a bat?

      What’s your point and how is it relevant to this discussion? No one is arguing that the kid was smart.

  • john lips

    the lesson here is eventually all fathers will find out that their little princess daughter is an untrustworthy whore like every other girl. just try not to shoot the guy.

  • DefCon99

    This wouldn’t have happened if the girl hadn’t lied to her father.

    • KevinJ

      True. If she had told the father truth, he probably wouldn’t have shot the boy. And if he did shoot the boy, then he would be guilty of a crime, as the boy would have been identified as a lawful entrant. That’s not what happened though. The daughter identified him as an unlawful entrant and everything after that is within legal boundaries. As others have said, the daughter is “guilty” here. I don’t know how or what you could charge her with and make it stick… but also as others have said, Wrongful Death is hanging about the daughter. I don’t see how you could hang that on the dad.

      • Mark Stuber

        Whether or not the boy was a lawful entrant has no bearing except for maybe in a few jurror’s mind in assessing whether or not he was in reasonable fear. The way I look at it, if someone is angry and reaching for a weapon they are dangerous whether they are a stranger or not. I just don’t belive this dad. “Reaching for something” does not sound genuine to me.

    • Mark Stuber

      Who knows? maybe the father was made becasue the kid screwed his daughter. Maybe in denying the daughter’s assertion that she did not know the boy, he responded, I was invited here by your daughter to sleep with her. Maybe he believed the boy.

  • Angelo S

    They NEVER I.D. the race when a black kills somebody. What?

  • PistolPeterson

    If you snuck into someone’s home and are in bed with their 16 year old daughter and she’s telling daddy she doesn’t know you…… don’t make ANY sudden moves! and don’t expect to see daylight.

    • Mark Stuber

      No one is arguing the boy was smart, Captain Obvious.

  • David Owen

    I see a huge wrongful death lawsuit on the way.

    • yourmathteacher

      Nope – Texas penal code specifically spells out that no civil cases can be filed in cases like this. Castle Doctrine.

  • beauevil

    I can’t believe the number of people calling the girl a whore. Oh, sure. None of you had premarital sex?! Maybe you prefer the news bit from a few weeks ago where a teenaged daughter sneeked home in the middle of the night and her dad shot her to death thinking she was an intruder!

    • Rebecca Robinson

      Probably calling her a whore since they are presuming she is new to the town, since in the video neighbors said the family had moved in ‘about a week ago’

      no word on where they had moved from, not sure on that.

      But if they just moved into town and shes already trying to get the D, I’d at least say slut…at least that’s what she will be known as in school with any hope.
      Not the kind of person I’d want to be friends with, would probably claim she doesn’t know you when you need her most.

  • Any Body Get it

    The father is innocent. I would kill any intruder too. Too bad for the boy. He probably moved because his daughter was becoming a whore… looks like it wasn’t working. In any case, the dad is innocent.

    • Mark Stuber

      That kid was not an intruder. It was obvious from the start.

      • athynz1

        Did you read the article Mark? The daughter told the father she had no idea who this kid was – so no it was not “…obvious from the start.” The father rightfully acted on the assumption that this kid was an intruder in his daughter’s bedroom and when she said she had no idea who he was and he reached for something (allegedly) he acted to save the lives of his family and himself. That is obvious from the article.

        • Mark Stuber

          re:”Did you read the article Mark?” Yes. This one and some others.

          re: “The daughter told the father she had no idea who this kid was”

          Irrelevant. It is murder for him to kill people who don’t know his daughter as well as it is
          his daughter. I see nothing in the Texas Code that specifies one has to know his daughter to he a victim of murder. If it was valid self defense it was valid self defense regardless of whether the girl knew the boy or not.

          re: “The father rightfully acted on the assumption that this kid was an intruder”

          Or so he says. Whether he was an intruder or not. He shot the kid for “reaching for something”, not for being an intruder according to the father.

          • athynz1

            Actually it IS relevant – she gave the kid a death sentence by her lies. Had she said yes the father would have realized that he wasn’t some wannabe rapist POS but just some kid who wanted to get his rocks off and very likely would not have fired the weapon.

            Why are you so hell-bent on painting the father as a murderer?

            • Mark Stuber

              re: “Actually it IS relevant – she gave the kid a death sentence by her lies. ” You are impying the father shot father him for being an intruder. It that is the case, he is guilty of murder and probably premeditated murder. The father did not excuse the shooting with “he was an intruder.” The father’s excuse was “he reached for something.” Did the girl lie about him “reaching for something” becasue according to the father, that is why he killed the kid.

              • athynz1

                Wow it’s becoming more and more obvious that you did not read the story Mark. The girl lied about knowing the kid – therefore the kid is an intruder in the home, in his daughter’s room – and he reached for something. Therefore it can be assumed in that situation that the kid is reaching for a weapon and intended harm to the girl and/or the father. HOW is that murder – “premeditated” or otherwise? If one goes by what the article states it is a clear cut case of self defense.

                I understand you seem to be scared of guns and are trying to twist this into some sort of “guns are bad, gun owners are bad, gun bans are good” sort of thing and such a stance will color your idea of what happened however one needs to look at this dispassionately. And you “know” how 17 year olds act? You “know” this kid wasn’t reaching for anything based on this knowledge? It may be that you are right – NONE of us commenting on this were there. However I’m going on more than some sort of idealism before I judge the man guilty of murder. Until there are facts that prove otherwise I’m seeing this as a case of self defense/defending one’s family against a possibly armed intruder.

                • Mark Stuber

                  Re: “Wow it’s becoming more and more obvious that you did not read the
                  story Mark. The girl lied about knowing the kid – therefore the kid
                  is an intruder in the home, in his daughter’s room – and he reached
                  for something.”

                  I did read the article and my reading comprehension is such that, I can
                  distinguish the difference between the article definitively stating
                  the boy “reached for something” and the article stating the
                  father claimed the boy “reached for something.

                  I strongly doubt the kid did “reach for something” for reasons I
                  have stated over and over again.

                  Re:“ Therefore it can be assumed in that situation that the kid is reaching for a
                  weapon and intended harm to the girl and/or the father. HOW is that
                  murder – “premeditated” or otherwise? “

                  Because assuming “the kid is reaching for a weapon and intended harm”
                  does not justify homicide. You’re suggesting a “I assumed he was
                  going to hurt someone defense.”

                  Re:
                  “I understand you seem to be scared of guns and are trying to twist this
                  into some sort of “guns are bad, gun owners are bad, gun bans
                  are good” sort of thing and such a stance will color your idea
                  of what happened however one needs to look at this dispassionately. “

                  You either deliberately like making straw man arguments or assuming
                  things. I am very pro second Amendment. I have never stated my
                  opinion on gun rights or gun control on this thread. Your baseless
                  contention that I am pro gun control and my affinity with the gun
                  control movement colors my perceptions of what happened here,
                  indicate that this may be what is happening with you in the the
                  reverse. Your jumping to conclusions about wear I stand on the “right to keep and ear arms” indicates your zeal to defend the right to “keep and bear
                  arms” has clouded your judgment.

                  • athynz1

                    My judgment remain unclouded. You are simply reading things between the lines that are not there. You assume I possess a zeal for the Second Amendment that colors my opinion – and to a certain extent that is true but I can step away from that and look at this without that bias interfering.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      re: “My judgment remain unclouded. You are simply reading things between the lines that are not there. ” That’s the pot calling the kettle black considering you concluded that I was a gun control advocate even though, I never hinted at where I stood on the “right to keep and bear arms.” You said, that my anti-gun attitude clouded my judgement when I am far from anti-gun.

  • Cory Tyler Gould

    i see so the only option was to resort to shooting a 17 year old kid? the father should go to prison for manslaughter at the very least, I don’t care if he was in your home he wasn’t threatening anyone what a piece of shit this family is.

    • KevinJ

      Not the only option. But a legal one based on the reported circumstances and the location of the incident.

    • Mark Stuber

      Well, the dad is a piece of shit. We don’t know if the daughter is. The dad may have lied about what the daughter told him. I don’t think we should take anything this man says at face value.

      • athynz1

        So now you want to call the dad a liar and a piece of shit. Dude if that were the case here he would be in jail but since he’s not in jail and it appears the case will be dropped it seems like the daughter collaborated the story.

        • Mark Stuber

          Yes. I am calling the died a liar and even worse than a POS. I am calling him a murderer.

          • athynz1

            Why? Had the daughter not lied he very likely would not have fired. In his mind the kid wasn’t some friend of his daughter’s looking to get his rocks off but an intruder with the intent to rape his daughter. THAT is the issue you fail to recognize.

            • Mark Stuber

              re: “Had the daughter not lied he very likely would not have fired.” I’m not convinced of that. Also, it doesn’t matter. You can’t shoot someone just for being an intruder. If someone told you I slept with your wife, you couldn’t shoot more for sleeping with your wife even if you thought it was true. Would you argue that the person who lied, was guilty of man slaughter? Heck, if that boy’s parents had never had sex, he would have never been born, and therefore, would have never been born. In the law, you have to do more than just prove if A had not happened B would not have happened. You have to prove “proximate cause.” Look up the concept.

    • athynz1

      I wonder if you’d change your tune if you were in the same situation – if someone you didn’t know was in your daughter’s bedroom and she said she didn’t know who he was and he reached for something. But yeah the family is a piece of shit for the daughter’s lies…

  • beauevil

    When did blacks start moving into Spring?

  • Lacsar

    Of course pops is going to say he made a sudden move for something. Can’t come out & say your mad he was there, so blew him away. Its CYA all the way. But 100% the daughters fault for not saying “im sorry dad, he’s a friend of mine”. Take the grounding & see the kid some other day. But denying she knew who he was while you see your dad with a gun in his hand she could of imagined the outcome in a split second, nothing to ponder there. Common sense says if she admitted he was a friend, dad would be angry, maybe would have pistol whipped him, but not justified to kill him & he’d he’d still be alive.

  • ugo2020

    it sounds like the father could of known the boy wasn’t an intruder by the look on the daughters face.

    i’m getting tired of people killing people cuz they think they’re reaching for a gun – but they’re not

    • KevinJ

      Let’s not lump this in with the myriad of cases where civil “servants” pop innocents or the unarmed in a bid to “keep us safe.” This man was in his own home, confronted with a stranger, in what he thought was a threatening situation.

  • Frank Castle

    DAUGHTER is both RESPONSIBLE and GUILTY.. Father? he did what any father would do.. he is in the clear.

    • Sabredave

      Any father that would just shoot someone without knowing for an absolute fact there was a life in danger is a coward and an asshole.

      • MTiz

        If you ever find someone in your home that you suspect to be an intruder make sure to ask them to sit down for a cup of tea while you chat it out……

        • Mark Stuber

          Things would have have worked out better if that’s what he did wouldn’t have it?

          • KevinJ

            Or the boy might have beat the father into a coma for insinuating he likes tea more than coffee… See ? I can pull shit out of my butt too.

            • Mark Stuber

              I’m not pulling shit out of my ass by referenceing the boy’s death. We all know he died.

        • Sabredave

          Has already happened, I didn’t shoot anybody. Crazy isn’t it.

      • athynz1

        Okay the kid – well 17 year old – was in his home in his daughter’s room without anyone (other than the daughter of course) knowing he was even there. Therefore tot he father the kid is an intruder in his daughter’s bedroom. The daughter then saying she didn’t know who the kid was escalated the threat. Then the kid reached for something. So now you want to call the father an asshole and a coward for protecting his family with using the information he had available to him at the time?

  • Ben Johnson

    It’s so sad what our society has become. Read the comments below and you’ll see how many glorify the death of another person.

  • Nigel Covington

    Stupid bitches lie… people die.

  • Uncle Siam

    Justified according to the circumstances. Daughter is culpable.

    -Stranger under your daughter’s bed.
    -Owner of home confronts stranger while armed.
    -Daughter confirms he is stranger.
    -Stranger makes a threatening movement when he should probably have his hands up.

    • Tevis T

      Agreed. This daughter should go to jail.

  • disqusisdumb5

    Move in, Move out.

  • bl1962

    His daughter is evidently a whore.

  • bl1962

    I myself just couldn’t shoot someone not unless my life is being threatened or my family if the boy wasn’t trying to harm someone he could have held him there until the police arrived but yet the cops are all to trigger happier here in the states now.

  • bl1962

    Kind of extreme isn’t it.

  • Faniel

    If its true that the “teen ignored the fathers commands” (which you never know, they may be contorting that so that it sounds better in court as far as self defense goes) then that teen is a fool! Why would you argue with the dad? Just get the hell out like any other boy caught in a girls bed! But then again, maybe he did try to make a run for it, and got shot, or was taken off guard. The girl probably didn’t know her dad would shoot the kid, but maybe panicked.. Who knows.. maybe the father would have shot him anyway..

    • Mark Stuber

      Other then getting out the house, was the teen obligated to obey the father’s commands?

      • MTiz

        Would you disobey the commands of a homeowner with a gun pointed at you? Father even called 911 before confronting the teen showing that it wasnt a shoot first and ask questions last scenario.

        I suggest googling this story and reading more details that are presented from other news outlets…or just keep trolling.

        • Mark Stuber

          re: “Would you disobey the commands of a homeowner with a gun pointed at you?”

          It depends on what those commands were. Generally speaking, no, I wouldn’t disobey. That’s because I’d be scared not to. Not, because I would feel a moral obligation to obey. Again, take a logic class. I didn’t say was smart of him not to obey. I implied by my question, I felt he was not obligated to.

          Please stop it with these straw man arguments. You are either being stupid or dishonest. Since, I already demonstrated the ability to call you out on your straw man, yet you still do it, I am going to conclude you are stupid. A smart dishonest man would came up with some other sophist argument. Please, for the sake of man kind, take a logic class.

          i have googled and read other articles about this incident. What in those stories do you think would lead me to believe the teenager had a moral obligation to obey the older man except for leaving his property?

        • Mark Stuber

          I answered your question.. Can you please answer mind?

      • Faniel

        Well, I’m assuming the command WAS “get out of the house,” what else would he be asking the kid to do, pull his pants down?

        • Mark Stuber

          Faniel did not specify. The word “commands” was used which is plural. So, I can assume she meant at least one other command besides get out of the house. You do know the difference between singular and plural: between “commands” and “command.” Correct?

          • Faniel

            Well, I understand that alright. It’s all interpretation. Maybe the “commands” were, Get out of my house, and never come back? This story leaves much to the imagination, hence, we kind of have to make our own conclusions based on logic until the “reports” provide more. What other command do you think he could have asked?

            • Mark Stuber

              Good point and I don’t know.

  • rick

    Terrible tragedy.

  • John Smith

    If a daughter or son is sneaking around and doing things behind their parents, it becomes very evident that there is a lack of connection, communication, trust, respect and parenting skills.

    • Mark Stuber

      Or it could be just a typical teenage boy trying to get laid.

      • John Smith

        So what. Wanting to bang everything and anything that moves still doesn’t take away anything from the argument I made.
        It is not about wanting or not wanting sex, it is about the relationship you have with your parents that matter or that should.
        If your teenagers have to hide or lie about the wants and needs to you as the parent, I don’t blame the kids, I blame the parents and lack of parenting skills.

        • ConcernedVoter

          All teenagers, and I mean all of them, go through rebellious phases. Even those that have decent relationships with their parents. Obviously this dad cared enough to attempt to protect his daughter. She, on the other hand, is a capable, sentient human being, who is old enough to realize that what she was doing was wrong, and yet, still made the choice to deny knowing the boy which lead to his demise. That, I’m sorry, is on her. Not the parent.

          • John Smith

            Rebellious phases???? Hmmmmm.
            Sorry, that is an open ended argument.
            It is in part of human nature to be rebellious and to impose our will, needs as priority 1 and we are born apathetic toward others. It is called survival instincts.
            Do newborns wait to be changed and fed or do you cry at 2, 3 5 in the morning to have their needs met.
            It is the job of us parents to teach empathy, respect, honesty, care, love, compassion, respect by example so that they emulate the behavior.
            A teenagers “acting out” is very telling of their environment.

            • ConcernedVoter

              Teenagers “acting out” is part of their growing up. They don’t like rules being imposed on them, want to feel independent, and free to experiment, and so, even when a concerned parent is trying to do their best for them, some teens decide to take matters into their own hands and break those rules anyways. Your complete ignorance on the matter is truly telling. No experienced parent would be foolish enough to make such statements. A parent can be open and loving and accepting, and the child still reject them. That’s a fact.

            • KevinJ

              And some kids are just they way they are. There’s countless examples of several kids born into one household all turning out differently with different levels of success and different levels of rebellion. Snap judgments on “parenting skills” just demonstrates ignorance of reality.

              • ConcernedVoter

                Exactly this.

                Obviously this John Smith is either a very inexperienced parent, or not one at all. Some parents genuinely try to be nurturing, open, and accepting and the children turn out terrible. The child has a conscious of their own and is, believe it or not, responsible for their own actions.

                • John Smith

                  Question, Do you believe in discipline through spanking?

                  • KevinJ

                    Depends on the child, and the offense. I am not against it completely, and have used it. But also recognize that sometimes that I *have* in fact used it, it probably wasn’t the best course of action in hindsight.

                    • John Smith

                      Well though I would have liked for @ConcernedVoter to answer this question so as to gauge more or less his parenting style.
                      I am adamantly, philosophically opposed to any type of the initiation of physical aggression. I am a NAP and UPB (Universal preferable behavior) to the core supporter and believer. I lead by example, especially when it comes to my kids.
                      I appreciate the fact that you stated that you have used spanking as means to discipline but later thought it was not the best option. I hold the belief that it is never the “right” option.
                      Kids emulate what they see and can smell BS a mile away.
                      “Don’t hit but it is okay when daddy or mommy does it!”
                      When I have a disagreement with my daughter, imposing my way simply means that I have failed at the attempt to get the initial outcome I wanted from her and if I resort to physical punishment as my last option to “compliance”, I failed miserably as a role model and father, IMHO

                    • KevinJ

                      There’s an awful lot of absolutes in your statement. I’ll just have to say, I prefer to assess each child and each situation differently and do the best I can, recognizing that I’m not perfect, my kids aren’t perfect, and our relationship is not perfect.

                    • John Smith

                      None of us are perfect. I would never imply this to not be the case.

                      This is a libertarian posting and libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral, am I not correct in that argument?
                      Well, I believe in the principle and I live my life according to those principles and it also includes family members, especially my kids among other entities.

                      I am not perfect either but I like to think that I am respected by earning it, not by enforcing it or demanding it. That is not respect, it is fear / intimidation / coercion.

              • John Smith

                Hmmmm. Success.
                We would have to start with what you define as “successful.”

              • John Smith

                Causality involves not just the parents but any one they come in contact with through time. Nevertheless, parents can be the most influential people but not the rule.

        • ConcernedVoter

          Furthermore, the fact that you immediately assume that child who lies or sneaks around their parents is a result of bad parenting truly shows your lack of true knowledge about a parent-child relationship. This girl was caught red-handed with a teenage boy under her bed. Do you really think that, regardless of their relationship, she was going to come out and say, “Yeah dad, we were screwing.” No. She tried to lie to cover her own ass. How is that, in any way, the father’s fault. Did he try to identify the boy? Obviously he did, and the daughter denied it. The parent sided with their child, obviously, so that doesn’t, to me, demonstrate a bad relationship. He was trying to protect her. Thought he may be a harm to her. SHE is the one who decided to sneak him in and then lie about him to cover herself. So the fault squarely lies with her.

          • KevinJ

            … and the boy.

          • John Smith

            Wrong.

            You are putting the cart before the horse!

          • John Smith

            Are you religious?

        • Mark Stuber

          Re: ”
          So what. Wanting to bang everything and anything that moves still doesn’t take away anything from the argument I made.” I think you were reading way too much into normal teeenage behavior. Kids sneak around on their parents. You said the causes “So what. Wanting to bang everything and anything that moves still doesn’t take away anything from the argument I made.”

          That’s like saying if a 3 year old tries to steel a cookie from the cookie jare that that it must be a dysfunctional family. I just think you are jumping to conclusions.

          • Mark Stuber

            Who did I accuse of “wanting to bank everything and anything that moves?”

  • DahktaD

    Did the kid demonstrate common respect by coming through the front door after getting permission to enter this man’s home? No. Did the father have any idea there was a unknown person in his daughter’s room? No. Did the father have every right to believe his family was in danger when this teen was encountered? Yes. Does the father have the right to protect his family from an intruder? Yes.
    Did the daughter lie? Yes. Giving the situation presented, the father acted appropriately although it was with tragic results.

    • Mark Stuber

      re: “Did the father have any idea there was a unknown person in his daughter’s room? No.” Yes he did. His son told him. Read the article. Because of that idea he went into his daugher’s room with a gun.

      • billy

        mark thats completely irrelevant. his identity was unknown, the home owner did not welcome or invite this person onto his property, the father was told by his child that someone was in his daughters room. if you hear noise in your house you may have indication of an intruder does not change the fact that you would want to take control of the situation.

        • Chirpmcgurp

          Don’t worry, Retardmarkstuberbaker is the article’s troll for today. Pay him no heed.

        • Mark Stuber

          I was responding to DahktaD’s absurd contention that the father “had no idea” there was a boy in her daughter’s room when, he clearly did. How else could have he shot him? Does he just randomly shoot through her door for the hell of it? Of course he had “an idea” he was there. His son told him for crying out loud!

          It is relevent because if he had no idea, then he is a crazy man who blindly shoots into his daugher’s bed room and is not fit to be a parent on those grounds alone.

    • Tevis T

      The daughter should be in jail.

  • sinbadsailor

    Any criticism against the dad is racist.

    • Whiteknight

      Always some lose who is eager to talk about the PC racism shit but the absent for the foolish demands of feminsm…

  • Scooter McHeadshot

    don’t lie to daddy!

  • wraiththirteen

    Boys shouldnt sneak into peoples house’s. He obviously did not have permission to be there, so he got shot for breaking and entering. Dad you did a good job trying to protect your daughter.

    • John Smith

      Breaking and entering does not apply. He was let in voluntarily by the daughter without the Father’s knowledge or consent for very obvious reasons, sex.

      Now if I am the father and I find someone in the room, the circumstances would play a huge role into what actions I would take especially when the daughter claims she did not know who the intruder was.
      At that point in my mind the intruder is there to do no good thereby anything he does can escalate to a response with deadly force.
      Again circumstances would play big role. Did the daughter lock the door, why was she not screaming for help, did the “intruder” make a movement of aggression against the father or daughter and on and on.

      • DahktaD

        It is the father’s home, not the daughters. He makes the decision who may and may not enter the home, not some brat kid.

        • John Smith

          So what. Have you ever known of someone that goes to a friends house with the consent of the inviting friend only.
          You can claim what ever you want but this is not whether the father gave consent or not, it is what the legal term means as to breaking and entering.

      • Scooter McHeadshot

        the daughter was a minor, she doesn’t have authority to sneak a boy into her room in the middle of the night. regardless. the boy was being confrontational and made a sudden move and daddy shot him. too bad so sad.

        • John Smith

          Yes, I am not disputing or suggesting at this time with the info available that the father is guilt of anything other than to protect and defend his love ones. That is not my argument.
          In legal terms the boy did not commit a crime of breaking and entering.

        • Lush Rimbaugh

          Authority? To sneak? So anytime a 17 year old invites another 17 year old into their house a crime is being committed? Please. Just not true.
          I do agree that this is too bad and sad. Dad was as much a victim as the kid was.

          • Ascencion Gomez

            Isn’t underaged sex a crime?

            • Mark Stuber

              Do you know what the age of concent is in Texas? and if Texas has any age range exceptions? Either way, it would not legally justify this shooting.

              • Ascencion Gomez

                If you are in someone’s house uninvited…you are subjected to their response….The father is in bad health and could easily be overpowered by a young adult who is brazen enough to enter his house uninvited. Any critical thinking person in the father’s shoes would have responded likewise..

                • Mark Stuber

                  Do you even know what critical thinking is? If the dad practiced critical thinking, he would not have blindly accepted his daughter’s implausible claim. He would have questioned the boy to find out what the boy knew about his daughter to see if he really was a stranger.

                  Also, “being in bad health” does not give one a license to kill.

                  Also, how do you know what kind of health the father was in? The only thing the only detail of his health that was reported was that he suffered a panic attack.

                  • Ascencion Gomez

                    Mark it seem you don’t. Had it been blind thinking he would have been firing without assessing. Besides I’m not talking about the critical thinking people like you do behind the computer screen. I’m speaking about assessing the situation, coming to a decision and acting…Do some follow on reading the man is a health wreck of a human. Bottom line had the boy committed some of his thought process to critical thinking he’d be alive…because he would have departed before the father showed up….

                    • Mark Stuber

                      I think you are using the term “critical thinking” as a generic term for thinking. It’s a very specific type of thinking which I do think you understand.

                      Whether the kid was thinking like an adult or not is irrelevant in accessing that dad’s guilt. The previous actions of the kid are irrelevant. What is relevant is the actions of the kid at the moment
                      or the the immediate moments before he was killed.

                    • Ascencion Gomez

                      Mark I think like a Marine…critical thinking to me begins by evaluating the situation, assess the people and responding with varying degrees of forces …I assume you are equating critical thinking as the process of evaluating, synthesizing and developing; that process is normally done under normal low stress circumstances. I’ve read a couple of other articles and it seems there is no direct indication that the boy attacked the father HOWEVER, it’s heavily insinuated that he did or the father thought he was going to…

                    • Mark Stuber

                      I know enough about Marines to know that not all Marines think alike for example Pappy Boyington and Col Michael Wilely (who I had as a professor) in graduate class on “Contempory Tactical Thought) sure, while there may be some critical thinking in the OODA loop, the OODA loops is hardly the definition of critical thinking.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      I know enough about Marines to know that not all Marines think alike for example Pappy Boyington and Col Michael Wilely (who I had as a professor) in graduate class on “Contempory Tactical Thought) sure, while there may be some critical thinking in the OODA loop, the OODA loops is hardly the definition of critical thinking. Considering the Col John Boyd used to use illistration from the animal kingdom (from some pretty primative animals) to explain the OODA loop, I doubt he would consider the OODA loop and critical thinking synonomonous.

                    • Ascencion Gomez

                      I agree to a point… And using those guys they both know that too much time to think too critically one wouldn’t act in most cases.

          • Mark Stuber

            That dad is still alive. I can see calling the dad a victim but to say “just as much” as the dumb kid does not seem well thought out.

          • Mark Stuber

            re: “I do agree that this is too bad and sad. Dad was as much a victim as the kid was.” That kid is dead. The dad isn’t.

        • Rojer Ramjet

          Actually, she does. Because unless the other kid was specifically “forbidden” entrance, the child may invite others in.

          Only if that person was specifically forbidden entry by the homeowners would it be illegal.

          Regardless, there’s going to be someone going to prison, methinks.

          The reason? You CANNOT kill someone because they make a “furtive motion,” unless you can clearly, at that time, articulate a clear and present threat of the use of deadly force by the other actor.

          Simply “moving” isn’t deadly force.

          The child is going to be prosecuted as well; she is legally as responsible for the other childs death, as her actions directly contributed to it; just as the get-away driver for a bank robbery is, as are those that aid and abet other ways.

          • Mark Stuber

            The get away driver is responsible for a murder if a homicide happened during the another crime which hew as aiding and abetting? What crime was the daughter commenting?

        • Tevis T

          People under 18 get charged and tried as adults all the time. The daughter needs to be arrested and charged with manslaughter. Her actions resulted in this boy’s death.

        • Cadlax

          How do you know what happened? Are you going to take the shooters word at face value? Surely he wouldn’t lie to save his own skin…

          • Scooter McHeadshot

            Well, it’s the daughter and fathers version against nobody. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, the court is more or less compelled to accept this version of events. This is why good self defense coaches teach you to make fatal shots, so it’s your word against a dead mans.

    • Cadlax

      He murdered the kid, plain and simple. He didn’t protect anyone.

      • KevinJ

        Bullshit. If anything, its a tragic accident, that all 3 parties, but ESPECIALLY the two teenagers, are responsible for.

        • Cadlax

          Last time I checked, if you pull the trigger. You are 100% responsible.

          • KevinJ

            Check again then. Because that statement is not based in any legal precedence, definitely not any in Texas. The father was having panic attacks after the killing the kid. I don’t think he feels good about it. Did he act rashly? Maybe. But that doesn’t mean he did anything illegal. You can choose to define responsibility in this case based on the final act alone, or you can choose to review the course of events and actions that lead up to the final act, and assign responsibility accordingly. I know which one I think is fair.

            • Cadlax

              Are you kidding me? How is anyone else directly responsible for his death? You can try to justify it any way you want. But take the gun out of the situation and the kid is still alive. The dad is responsible. Plain and simple. He had plenty of time to assess the situation and still made an irrational choice.

              If that is actually all true about the panic attacks, the dad really shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm.

              • KevinJ

                You don’ t have an fscking idea how much time he had to “assess” the situation. You don’t have any idea what words, gestures, expressions, etc. were flying around that room, or how they were flying around that room. Based on the ONLY statements available for the ONLY people that were there, and in the absence of ANY physical evidence presented by investigators to rebutt those statements…. ALL you have is an UNKNOWN, and believed to be UNINVITED young male in a daughter’s bedroom. Rant all you want… more times than not, that situation ends up with a bullet in someone… and the law is behind the shooter. “Take the gun out of the situation and the kids is alive” … that’s just code for “Get rid of guns and people won’t die”. Bullshit.

                • Cadlax

                  If he had enough time to call 911, he had enough time to assess the situation and de-escalate.

                  You have no idea either yet you take the fathers word as gospel truth and he has quite the motivation to tell a story that would defend his actions..

                  I’m the one ranting? Today I learned..

                  “Get rid of guns and people won’t die”.

                  In this situation, yes. I’m a gun owner. Get your red vs. blue mentality out of this argument. It doesn’t help you.

                  • KevinJ

                    You’re the one that made a “gun vs no-gun” statement, not me. Your expansive speculation is entertaining… but its not going to change the legal outcome, and won’t change my mind with regards to the rights of a homeowner, which IMO are COMPLETELY sovereign, up to and including the use of deadly force. Would *I* personally have shot this kid? Maybe not. But I wasn’t there any more than you were. I, personally, would probably be a little more sure before pulling the trigger. But my opinion in that, just like yours, doesn’t change jack squat. Expect to be shot when sneaking into another man’s house…. period. That respect will serve you well.

                    • Cadlax

                      Nooo, just no. I was merely pointing out the situation could have been easily diffused without a gun in the situation because I was leading to the argument that the dad is at 100% fault for the death. You are the one who turned it into a “gun hater” slant when I was just trying to make a point on culpability.

                      The jury will charge this guy. Guarantee it. Even you yourself said you wouldn’t have pulled the trigger. there was plenty of room for this kid not to die and that is where blame will fall.

                      I don’t understand why you are trying to turn this into an argument about sovereignty. No where did I ever dispute that claim that, may I add, I support.

                    • KevinJ

                      Because based on the LAW, not your or my opinion, if I am in my house in Texas and someone is breaking into my home, or has been discovered after breaking into my home, the homeowner can shoot the offender right there on the spot. That’s how it works. If I am sitting on the couch and a strange person crashes through the front door, or walks in from my garage, I can shoot him. Period. He doesn’t have to say anything to me, he doesn’t have to threaten me with a pipe or a knife or a gun. If you enter my home uninvited, I can legally drop you on the spot. THAT is why this guy WON’T be charged, and its also why your opinion means nada on the matter.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Re: ” the homeowner can shoot the offender right there on the spot. ” Only if their is imminent threat of some felony being committed even under the Castle Doctrine. All the Castle Doctrine does is negate the requirement to take an available avenue of retreat. I just read up on the law and you are talking out of your ass regarding the law.

                    • KevinJ

                      “Only if their is imminent threat of some felony being committed even under the Castle Doctrine. ” Bullshit. You need to keep reading as to how its applied in Texas. In Texas, you have the right to use deadly force to even prevent burglary or theft of your property.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      I did do some more reading. I read from web site of the Texas Firearm Coalition that, “As noted earlier, repeal of the retreat duty [The Castle Doctrine] does not change or diminish the long Th-standing requirements to use deadly force found throughout Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code” The title of the article is “The Truth About The Texas Castle Doctrine.” I’ve read several other articles that say the same thing. The word “Castle Doctrine” isn’t in the Texas code.

                      Unfortunatly, The Federal Republic makes it hard to post links. I did post links in anotehr post, but that post is pending review.

                    • KevinJ

                      Ya, you can’t post links, but Texas Texas Penal Code §9.32 as it has been applied says exactly what I have been saying all along. You can’t shoot someone for standing in your yard, or sneaking into your barn, but you can shoot someone for breaking into, or attempting to break into your house while your there, or burglarizing your home, etc. You don’t have to demonstrate imminent threat.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Quote the section that says you don’t have to have imminemnt threat. I don’t know what the burdern of proof is on the defendent to justify but if the prosecuters can show, there was no imminent threat, he’s toast. You say, “as has been applied.” What’s the relavent court cases?

                    • KevinJ

                      Jeez dude… do some reading of your own for pete’s sake… § 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
                      (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
                      other under Section 9.31;
                      (2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation
                      would not have retreated; and
                      (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
                      deadly force is immediately necessary:
                      (A) to protect himself against the other’s use or
                      attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
                      (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
                      aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
                      assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
                      (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
                      apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
                      of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
                      habitation of the actor.

                      There’s any number of reasons in there that don’t constitute “imminent threat”, including unlawful entry, robbery, theft, etc. In this case, unless you can get the daughter to recant statement, there’s no way to refute the father’s statement.. period.

                    • KevinJ

                      I posted the whole section here snd they deleted my post. Look it up for yourself. Breaking into someone’s home is considered justified for the use of deadly force. Right there in black and white. The girl identified the boy as an unlawful entrant. Justified shooting according to that penal code.

                      Suck it.

                    • Cadlax

                      Yeah, I understand castle doctrine, don’t patronize me.

                      If they were doing the dirty, he didn’t break in. So you’re point is null and void.

                      And please, do point out once again that since she was a minor so she couldn’t have legally let him in. Well, if you want to go that route, the kid shouldn’t be at fault for entering. Let’s keep it equal then.

                    • KevinJ

                      I never said anything about him being a minor, and its irrelevant to the father’s decision as he didn’t “card” the kid. He didn’t break in, but the father thought he broke in based on his daughter’s lie. The only way you’re getting any traction against the father is if the daughter admits she lied about lying.. and even that’s dicey for obvious reasons.

            • Mark Stuber

              Maybe he was having panic attacks because he is scared of going to prison for the rest of his life. His panic attacks have no probative value

    • jheathco

      You people are psychotic. Were you ever a teenager? I’m sure you you never got yourself into any trouble. If you can read (doubtful) you’d notice that the daughter snuck him in. He did not break and enter.

      • wraiththirteen

        He knew he was not supposed to be there, he knew she was sneaking him in. When I was a teen I did some things that could have gotten me killed too, teens do it all the time, hopefully this will wake up some teens so they dont get killed to.

        • Mark Stuber

          wraiththirteen, I don’t believe you were ever invited to a girl’s house when you were a teenager and if you were, you would have been there in two minutes and you would have been so excited, you would have been fineshed before you got your button unzipped.

  • Rob Uhls

    Did you see them wheel out the dad. That guy was huge. He could have laid on the 17 year old till the police got there… Why’d he have to shoot him?

    • KevinJ

      Strange male in the house… all bets are off. I might not have shot him… but then again, I might have.

    • Flyingguns

      I wouldve done the same exact thing you idiot. Would you have waitied until he pulled out and pointed a gun at you before you had yours out when he suddenly went for his pockets for a gun? I didnt think so stupid.

      • Will

        No, I wouldn’t be so stupid to believe my daughter in this situation. The father and daughter should be charged with manslaughter.

        • John Smith

          You are making an assertion and conclusion that go beyond what is being reported in this story to claim that charges should be imposed unless you know of some information the rest of us lack at the moment.
          That may very well be the case but not if you regard this report as the only evidence to considered.
          That is bias confirmation on your part and perceived notions.

          • Mark Stuber

            The evidence is the girl admitted to knowing him. Also, it doesn’t pass the smell test. She’s just laying in the bed with a stranger?

      • Rob Uhls

        Wow sarcasm is not popular round these parts. Please don’t tell me you actually have a gun?

    • ShaneJax

      You’re an idiot. The boy reached for something suddenly after the daughter denied knowing the kid. In any rational persons mind the moment the daughter denies knowing the kid that makes him more than likely a rapist. Unknown person in daughters room. Daughter denies knowing him. Unknown person doesn’t listen to man with a gun and reaches for something. Not a startling conclusion at all for the series of events.

      • Mark Stuber

        Re: “The boy reached for something suddenly after the daughter denied knowing the kid.” How do you know that is true?

        • KevinJ

          How do you know it isn’t? There is no burden of proof on the father.

          • Mark Stuber

            I don’t know. Did I make a statement either way? No, I didn’t. ShaneJax made the statement and I am asking him, how he knows.

            It does seem unlikely the kid was wearing enough clothing for a reasonable person to be concerned about a concealed weapon, but I don’t know that. I am sure if I was an investigator or on a jury, I could see crime scene photos that would tell me.

        • ShaneJax

          How do you know it’s not? That’s what the two living people from the tragedy have stated or at least one of them stated it and the other hasn’t yet contradicted it. Until more info is provided, if that ever happens, the results of the night are not the least bit surprising.

    • Michael

      Who are you, Joe Biden? No one but a fool would suggest the method to stop an intruder is to go lay on top of them.

      • Rob Uhls

        Clearly you have issues with sarcasm. Doesn’t change the fact that situation escalated pretty quickly.

  • Shawn Blagg

    I think the Father is lying…. Nothing about this story sounds true.

    • Ken Fletcher

      Is some punk were in my daughter’s bedroom and my daughter said she didn’t know him, I’d probably shoot him, too.

      • Shawn Blagg

        I don’t think that’s what happened. How does the daughter “not Know” the guy who’s in bed with her?… There’s a guy in her bed and she’s not struggling to get out. And she defends him by saying they weren’t “In Bed” together… Please… Any parent worth a bit would know that their daughter is lying… And a random intruder situation plays out a lot different than what this seemed to do.

        Doesn’t matter anyway, I guess.. Texas is going to let him get away with murder. Hooray for Free Murder!

        • Webber87

          He was under the bed…

          • Mark Stuber

            Where does the article say he was under the bed?

            • Chirpmcgurp

              “It all began when the girl’s younger brother noticed feet sticking out from her bed.” It’s even emboldened for people who glance over articles.

              • Mark Stuber

                Other articles do say “under” However, to accuse someone of poor reading skills for missing “under” in this article when is not in this article is redicolous.

            • KevinJ

              Did you even read it? “It all began when the girl’s younger brother noticed feet sticking out from her bed. “

              • Mark Stuber

                Yes. I read the article. And in the very sentence you quoted it says “sticking out FROM her bed.” It does not say , “sticking out from UNDER her bed.” Again, where are you getting the information that he was under her bed?

                • KevinJ

                  I Googled the story for more details… so as to get the full story. He was under the bed, and it says so in numerous write ups. They just left the “under” out of the sentence here. But WTF do you think he is referring to? Hiding under the covers?

                • Esther Maina

                  Listen to the video, the report says ‘under the bed’.

                  • Frank Castle

                    It all began when the girl’s younger brother noticed feet sticking out from her bed. The son went and told the father, who grabbed a pistol and went to investigate.

                    Got READING ISSUES??

                    • Mark Stuber

                      “out from” is not “under.” And yes, I do have reading issues. i am dyslexic. However, I am still able to read at the graduate level.

            • Guest

              “It all began when the girl’s younger brother noticed feet sticking out from her bed.”

              • Mark Stuber

                “out from” is not “under”, stupid.

        • Flyingguns

          wanna live? dont sneak into a fathers daughters bedroom. especially if that father has a firearm and is willing to do whatever is neccessary to protect his family’s lives.

          • Cadlax

            Haha, yeah you’re right.. Because killing some kid who was lying in bed with your daughter is “protecting her life”. There is no way in hell this can be construed as self defense gun use.

            • Frank Castle

              didn’t read the STORY did ya jackass??

              • Cadlax

                So eloquent.

            • mike

              YOU still don’t seem to be able to read. He wasn’t IN bed. He was UNDER it. BIG Difference. Since the daughter denied knowing he’s there or who he was and the SON brought it up…….. quit putting bullshit in your post to fit to your BELIEFS.

              • Mark Stuber

                Ok. Under the bed. That makes it even harder to kill someone. Is it easier to kill someone when you are in bed with her or when you are under her bed.

          • Shawn Blagg

            yeah… Lets put all the blame on the Victim… How about Try not to shoot un-armed kids.

          • Shawn Blagg

            How about, be more responsible with Guns. He killed a kid that he KNEW wasn’t a prowler or doing something evil.

        • Scooter McHeadshot

          So you’ve got a video and transcript of the whole encounter do ya? idiot. kid was in daughters room, daughter denies knowing him, kid argues with dad and makes a sudden move. dad smokes kid. sorry, but i see no problem here. maybe a civil case, but nothing criminal.

          • ShaneJax

            Only civil case might be against daughter. Castle doctrine in Texas is pretty strong.

            • KevinJ

              As it should be.

            • Cadlax

              How the hell does castle doctrine apply here?

              • KevinJ

                Because the father questioned the daughter and she identified him as a stranger, this implies to the father that he broke into the house. If someone breaks into your house in Texas while you’re in it, you can shoot them to protect your self/family/property. That’s pretty well established.

                • Cadlax

                  And guess what? By the time the father was questioning the daughter, the kid wasn’t presenting a threat as many of you apologists are trying push. The dad wasn’t protecting anyone at that point.

                  It’s kind of hard to break into someones home when you are invited in..

                  • KevinJ

                    You can’t “prove” that the father didn’t feel threatened. And you can’t “prove” that the father knew he was invited in. Therefore, you can’t “prove” the father wasn’t acting to protect his home and property. Like I said… the burden of proof is NOT on the father. It would be on any prosecutor that chose to charge this man.

                    • Cadlax

                      Right, and you can’t prove anything the Dad said is true. So there we have it.

                      No, I’m sorry, when you kill a kid, you kind of have to prove you did it justifiably..

                    • KevinJ

                      Not a strange uninvited, uncooperative, kid in your daughter’s bedroom in your Texas household… you don’t.

                    • Cadlax

                      He was invited.

                      Who says he was uncooperative? The dad who killed him? Why would he lie? Right? So since he put his hands down, he deserved to die? Makes sense…

                    • KevinJ

                      Prove it.

                    • Cadlax

                      I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not the one who pulled the trigger.

                      What exactly do you want me to “prove” anyway. All I did was shoot down your points.

                    • KevinJ

                      No. You didn’t. I said before, but you aren’t paying attention. The legal burden of proof is NOT on the father. He has given his account of the facts. If investigators want to refute his statement with EVIDENCE to the contrary, then they can, and then he can defend or recant his statement. Your preference to just say, “Of course that’s what he would say” doesn’t change anything, because “Of course that’s what he would say” if
                      a) he were lying or
                      b) he were telling the truth.
                      You are calling him a liar because you don’t believe him. Not because you have seen any evidence he is one.

                    • Cadlax

                      How is the burden of proof not on the father? Please, enlighten me.

                      Are you honestly implying that the father could have kept completely silent and you would still think he was justified?

                      No I’m merely questioning the narrative because no one else is. I’m posing possible alternative theories because no one else is because everyone is so far up this fathers ass about this fantasy to defend their daughter.

                      Someone died and everyone seems to be happy about it right off the bat. That doesn’t sit well with me.

                    • KevinJ

                      I am saying that the father doesn’t have the legal burden of proof, in this situation, in the state of Texas. I’m saying that, and I am saying I personally completely agree with that legal circumstance.

                    • Cadlax

                      Yes, he does. When the state comes after him or the other family in a civil case. he better be able to defend himself.

                    • KevinJ

                      Against WHAT exactly? Unfounded accusations? There is ZERO statements or physical evidence to refute his statement.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Yes he did.

                    • patrickw

                      The daughter lying about knowing the kid…. that kinda proves the father didn’t know, and kinda destroys any potential to say the father knew.

                      I feel sorry for the father, you know he is hurting knowing that his daughter lied and it cost the life of that boy. I would hate to be in his shoes… but at the same time I would not hesitate to act in the same manner he did. The daughter now knows it was her actions that cost the life of her boy, and no guy is ever going to want to so much as speak to her ever again…. and rightfully so.

                    • hptouch270

                      Sorry Cadlax, but according to the Constitution, it is the burden of the STATE to prove his GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the other way around.

                    • Cadlax

                      You obviously didn’t catch what I was saying. You better damn well be able to prove and defend that you did it justifiably or you are going to be facing jail time if and when the state charges you and when the family comes after you in a civil case.

                    • hptouch270

                      Obviously you did not get what I was saying. The father can say anything he would like. It will be presented as fact. It is then the state’s duty to examine and criticize said fact until they can determine if the statement is true or not. He is innocent at this very moment until the state proves otherwise. And there is no case for a civil trial unless it is brought against the daughter as a wrongful death case, which should be filed. Based on the facts presented to the father at the time, he had no knowledge of his daughter letting someone into his home. AT THAT TIME, he was well within his rights to defend himself / home / family against ANY and ALL intruders that illegally enter his home, which AT THAT TIME, the father had information the boy had entered illegally. Knowledge Ex Post Facto is inadmissible in court, ESPECIALLY in a wrongful death civil case.

                    • Cadlax

                      Which is all bull. If he actually felt threatened for his life, he would have shot him initially and not waited to call 911.

                      The way this is looking, even with his story, it looks like he is at fault. You don’t get to shoot someone even with the castle doctrine just because he lowered his hands.

                      You are already coming into this situation with a bias that he was justified and should be defended. Why not with doubt and a neutral stance?

                      Any responsible gun owner knows this situation could have been de-escalated and the kid did not have to die, therefore there is room for guilt on the fathers part.

                      Shooting first and asking questions later is not a valid defense of self defense.

                    • hptouch270

                      “Why not with doubt and a neutral stance?”

                      Because that is not the law. Period.

                      You are more than welcome to have your own personal opinion for any given situation. Again, that is the law. But your opinion is not the law.

                      And if the teenager had listened to instruction from the father, he would still be alive. See? Personal opinion. Neither one of us is right because it is not the law.

                      The law is as stated above. No amount of your whining and interjection is going to change that fact.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      The kid is dead. He can’t be prosecuted. It doesn’t matter if he was an intruder or not. The same laws against murder still apply. The rules of self defense still apply. The dad did not try to excuse the shooting by saying the kid was an intruder. The dad tried to justify the homicide by saying the kid “reached for something.”

                    • Mark Stuber

                      re: “He is innocent at this very moment until the state proves otherwise. ” If that were true, if the state would stop trying to prove crimes, no crimes would ever be committed.because, everyone would be innocent of them.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Can you cite me where the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is in the Constitution?

                    • Mark Stuber

                      The standard is would a reasonable person feel am iminment threat. The only ring the Castle Doctrine adds is that no one had the duty to retreat execpt for save the dead teenager.

                    • KevinJ

                      Don’t confuse your doctrines. You don’t have to prove imminent threat, in your home, in Texas.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      I just read up on it and it seems imminent threat is required for
                      justifiable homicide. From what I read, all the Castle Doctrine
                      does is negate the requirement to look for an avenue of retreat. The Castle Doctrine is Stand Your Ground inside, your home, car, or place of work, in Texas.

                  • ShaneJax

                    Right and as you whine about in another reply. How the hell do you know what happened? Were you hiding in the closet? So far your whines are seemingly simply based upon your nonsensical judgement that the daughter and father concocted a lie to protect the fathers shooting of the innocent boy…Your opinions are based on nothing from the story and seem to be entirely based on your value judgments of what you think actually happened.

                    • Cadlax

                      You don’t know any more than me and yet you still act like you know more than me. Weird..

                      Your opinions are no better than my questioning of a situation of which 95% of these posters in this thread are agreeing with: the dad’s narrative on the situation.

                      You honestly don’t think it would be plausible that they are lying? Why is that so out of the realm of possibility for you?

                    • Mark Stuber

                      The daughter admitted to inviting him in. That’s how he knows the kid was invited.

                    • ShaneJax

                      Damn you are truly stupid. The daughter admitted it after the shooting which you are suggesting the Father should have had omniscient knowledge of even though during the incident the daughter claimed she didn’t know who the kid was who was under her bed. Reading comprehension? What is it?

                    • Mark Stuber

                      The “he” I was referring to was Cadlax. You didn’t ask how the father knew the kid was invited. You asked Cadlax how he (Cadlax) knew the kid was invited. You tend to use straw man arguments which is either stupid or dishonest.

                      Can’t you at least remember your own questions? The antecedent to the pronoun should have been pretty clear to you unless you are searching for cheap shots.

                      I was answering YOUR question for crying out loud!

                      In response to Cadlax, you asked word for word, “. How the hell do you know what happened?” Since it was a response to Cadlax, it’s pretty clear what the antecedent to “he” was.

                  • Hawk Winters

                    Invited in by a minor doesn’t apply.

                    • Cadlax

                      So riddle me this. Would you kill your son’s friends if they come over uninvited to play games. I mean, they are breaking and entering after all. They deserve to be shot right? Any sudden movement might mean they have a weapon?

                      I’m asking these blatantly harsh questions for a reason. I’m using the same logic that everyone has been parroting in nearly every single comment.

                    • Hawk Winters

                      No, but I’m not supporting any particular side in this case. I’m just stating the legal grounds.

                      It will always be challenged in a court of law. There is a case where the police made entry into a house after receiving permission from a minor. This isn’t a police officer, it’s a teen. To believe the story as presented, the daughter stated she didn’t know who he was. The teen apparently didn’t listen to the father and tragic results happened. Even if the daughter knew the teen, she doesn’t have legal authority as a minor to grant permission.

                      “Nobody gives a teenager permission to allow strangers into their home. Yet, the majority focuses on what apparent authority the child in this case may have had to let the cops into the house at 2 o’clock in the morning. Since no actual authority would ever be given to a minor child in these circumstances, we are just ignoring reality and wasting our time analyzing this question. In my experience, no one gives their minor children any authority to allow strangers to enter their home. The police should presume that minors have no authority to consent to entry and should ask to speak to an adult. If no adults are available then the officers need to get a warrant (and possibly call CPS).”

                    • Cadlax

                      So if the daughter is too young to give permission to let the kid in, then why is everyone acting like the boy should have known better? If we are going to say 18 is the age of consent, let’s keep it equal.

                      I still don’t understand how people can claim the father was justified in shooting just because she was under 18 and couldn’t have legally let him in. That’s setting a dangerous precedent in which my questions were directly related.

                    • KevinJ

                      Age doesn’t have anything to do with it, other than the legal fine point that the kid is TECHNICALLY a tresspasser, until an adult lets him in. That doesn’t in and of itself justify shooting him.

                    • Cadlax

                      But that’s exactly what people in this thread are saying.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Was the police officer killed by the home owner in the case you are referring to?

                    • KevinJ

                      If ANY stranger is breaking into my house, or found in my house after breaking in… its possible they will be shot. Not definitely, but certainly possible, and certainly within my rights to do so.

                    • Cadlax

                      But that’s a ridiculous notion if there is a reasonable doubt that he was let in by a minor. Look I’m a big of a defender for self defense as there is. But this situation isn’t one of them.

                    • KevinJ

                      Again, the details presented, and as yet UNREFUTED, do not agree with your opinion on this.

                    • Cadlax

                      Ok smartass. Do tell, who is going to refute the details already given? No one, that’s who. So I don’t know why you are taking the details already given as truth.

                      Just because the father tells a story that defends his actions, doesn’t make it justified in any sense.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Great way to put it,Cadlax, I’m going to borrow that. I will give you credit of course.

                    • Cadlax

                      Dude, thank you. I feel like we are the only voices of reason in this thread.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Are you going to answer Cadlax’s question below?

              • Frank Castle

                you’re real SLOW aren’t you…

              • ShaneJax

                Find stranger in daughters room at night. Daughter denies knowing him making stranger a threat. Stranger doesn’t obey man with gun in his own house instructions. Shooting is justified under Castle Doctrine. Not sure what the hell is so hard to understand other than you are more than likely a anti gun nut or otherwise not very bright.

                • Cadlax

                  Haha, good joke, I probably own more guns than you. I hate people who don’t use guns correctly or with reason like this dumbass dad did and give gun owners a bad name. This situation could have been easily diffused yet he decided to use deadly force unnecessarily.

                  If he had enough time to call 911, he wasn’t that big of a threat and are you honestly taking the dad’s narrative that he “reached for something” truthfully? That’s rich.

                  • ShaneJax

                    I’m taking the only narrative I have heard as the facts on the ground currently. If and when the story changes so might my mind. But I’m not going to make up my own facts to draw my own conclusions as you are doing. If what you think happened did actually happen then I’ll agree with you that the father and possibly the daughter deserve some criminal charges. Until then you are just entertaining mental fantasies.

                    • Cadlax

                      They aren’t facts. They are simply the fathers account of the situation… That doesn’t make it true. And there is a lot of motivation to lie to protect your skin.If you take that as 100% truth then there is really nothing more to talk about because your mind will never change because no one else is going to be giving their side of the story..

                    • ShaneJax

                      Two eyewitnesses reports are far more relevant than your imagination as to what happened.

                    • Cadlax

                      O you mean the eye witness reports of the two people directly responsible for a persons death? Haha, why would they ever lie, right? That’s wouldn’t make any sense. /sarcasm

                    • KevinJ

                      The only other “side of the story” can be what the investigators find, or what you make up in your own head. I know which one I will give more credence.

                    • Cadlax

                      Haha, What are you talking about? The investigators haven’t said anything yet except the fathers side of the story.

                      I’m merely questioning the story because people like you and everyone else in this thread won’t and are defending the father tooth and nail for killing some one no less. And yet apparently that means I’m “making up a story”.

                • Mark Stuber

                  Castle Doctrine? All the Castle Doctrine does is remove the legal requirement to retreat. The Castle Doctrine does not give you the right to kill someone merely for disobeying you.

          • Will

            The daughter and father should be charged with manslaughter.

          • june coll

            no criminal case? and what happens to the daughter? She just gets away scott free from it all?! Damn shame!

            • KevinJ

              You’d probably have to prove she knew the dad would shoot him. Impossible to do. She screwed up big time… but seriously? What are you going to charge her with and how are you going to prove it?

              • Frank Castle

                lets see, dad FINDS STRANGE GUY in Girls bedroom, Dad is HOLDING a GUN… SHE LIES and says “I don’t know who that is”….. kid makes a funny move.. what did she expect dad was going to do?? serve him a PIZZA??

                • KevinJ

                  Prove it.

          • Cadlax

            And you were hiding in the closet and know exactly what happened right? please/

          • patrickw

            wouldn’t have a civil case against the father, now the daughter on the other hand….

          • Mark Stuber

            You’re assuming the kid “made a sudden” move. Why would the kid do that?

        • billy

          yea im sorry, i may not be a father yet but i could only imagine if my SIXTEEN year old daughter in a town ive only lived in for about a WEEK said she didnt know who was under the bed. Its already uncomfortable enough moving into a new home not knowing the neighborhood let alone probably having a teenage daughter. And on top of that there are instances of rape that go unreported for decades so its not uncommon. Sorry but in a heat of passion and the thought that its an intruder whos in there to cause harm I would hope you would be prepared to defend your own family. Its the daughters fault for not defusing the situation.

        • ShaneJax

          Reading comprehension, what is it?

        • James Crooke

          So Shawn your daughter you let the guy finish screwing her and then show him the door or do you shoot first and ask questions later?

          • Mark Stuber

            What a redicolous straw man. Sean never suggested that he let the guy finish screwing his daughter. Talk about a false dichotomy. Take a logic class, you moron.

        • KevinJ

          Father called 911 first. Google the story for more details. He didn’t just blast the kid on sight. He called the cops, and then the situation escalated somehow.

        • Michael

          What article were you reading? Go read the article before commenting, because what you are saying is patently false… The kid was UNDER the bed, not in it. And the daughter said she didn’t know him. Try reading before making dumb comments.

          • Mark Stuber

            Other articles say “under.” This one doesn’t.

          • Mark Stuber

            re: “What article were you reading? ” Shawn may have read the artical on the Libertarian Republic. It does not state the did was under the bed. Other sources do, but not this one.

        • srsanbo

          So the father should be convicted of murder eh? For shooting a trespasser that was invited into the home by a minor who doesn’t own the home? So parents should also be tried for the crimes their kids commit I suppose? How about SHE be held liable instead? ..It seems to me he could have (should have) escorted the kid out in a not-so-nice manner instead, but you weren’t there so your cries of “free murder” are ignorant.

          • Mark Stuber

            Even in Texas, it is illegal to shoot somoene fore merely being a trespasser.

        • Sibyl E. Scott

          It is not untypical for some of these gals have no clue whom they are “sleeping” with. I have heard of people that have multiple children by multiple men not even know who the father of some of their children are—so it is very much quite possible she did not know his name–but she sure did know he was there wit her.

        • Bluthar

          the cops have been doing it for decades!

        • patrickw

          Houston TX is far from being a peaceful little town.

          There have been many cases of a rapist holding someone in their bed, telling their victim, move, struggle,scream etc. and I will kill everyone in this house.

          Unless you know for a fact, that the father knew the boy (in which case you should be talking to the police, not posting on a forum), you can only go by what is reported, and thus must give the benefit of the doubt to the father. Also factor in the time (2AM) the father being awakened to being told there is someone in the daughters room by a concerned sibling…. and yeah… you have a situation that at the surface given teh circumstances appears to be something it may not be. When the daughter claims to not know the boy, it would seal in any father’s mind that the boy is a perverted rapist, out to do harm… at that point, the boy should have obeyed the father, and explained it calmly, and while doing anything the father said to do.

          • Mark Stuber

            What
            the boy “should have done” is irrelevant. It’s
            weather or not “reaching for something” would be perceived
            by a reasonable person as imminent deadly force.

            The father had already called the police, so we know a few minutes have already gone by. The father’s story does not pass the smell test so far.

        • mike

          You really odn’t critically think do you? You just assumed a whole lot. Have you been in a situation where you come home and there’s someone under your daughters bed? Now knowning who they are or how they got their. And your daughter then denies knowing who it is as well. Yeah, that wouldn’t freak you out or anything. I’m sure you would just act calm there’s someone your daughter claims not to know. Not like he knew the daughter knew the kid was there. It was his SON that told him about the guy under her daughters bed

          • Shawn Blagg

            You really don’t critically read, do you. The boy wasn’t under her bed, he was in bed with her. And the girl Said the she didn’t know him, but tried to claim that he wasn’t in bed with her. And any parent worth their salt should be able to tell the difference between a prowler and his Daughter’s Boyfriend.

            The part I don’t buy at all is that the kid “Reached” for something and that’s the reason he got shot. If he had no Weapon, then What was he reaching for?… his Pants?

            Nothing about this story makes sense, and I feel that the dad is lying.

            • Mark Stuber

              The only weapon the could have been conceiled by the clothing that kid was probably wearing could only be concealed if limp. Which it probably was by that point. And surely not life threatening.

              • Shawn Blagg

                I think you read that wrong… I’m saying that He never reached for anything at all.

                • Mark Stuber

                  You’re right, I did read that wrong. Or maybe I meant to respond to some other post. I stand corrected.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    I’m worried that the D.A. is not going to even try to get an inditment. It is going before a Grand Jury but the D.A says he doubts they will indite. I wonder if that is because the D.A is not going to try very hard. Common sense says the dad is lying.

                • Mark Stuber

                  No, I didn’t read that wrong. I was agreeing with you. Not arguing with you. ;)

          • Mark Stuber

            ” Now knowning who they are or how they got their. ” Who’s never head of a teenage girl sneaking a teenage boy into her house?

        • Ken Fletcher

          “I don’t think that’s what happened.” You have no clue what happened. “Hooray for Free Murder” – that’s sheer conjecture. Were you there? Did you witness everything?? The story is short on facts. The teenager, who the father did NOT know, starting arguing with him and “suddenly reached for something”. It could have been a gun – the story doesn’t say. In the heat of a confrontation I wouldn’t hesitate to protect myself and my family if someone I DIDN’T KNOW was in my house and started arguing with me and made a sudden move to reach for what could have been a gun. The girl shouldn’t have lied, but the guy should have just left when the father entered the room with a gun, but instead he got confrontational. And, yes, here in Texas we are allowed to protect ourselves. Thank God, too…..

          • Shawn Blagg

            You are such an idiot. You can’t for one second put yourself in the shoes of the Victim. This kid didn’t do anything wrong. He was invited into the home by the daughter. He wasn’t breaking in, he wasn’t a threat, and the dad shot him because he was Ban/g/ing the daughter.

            • Ken Fletcher

              No I can’t put myself in the shoes of the kid because (as someone who’s old enough to be a father) I’m not an idiot like he was. You, on the other hand, are an idiot if you think it’s okay to confront someone who has a gun pointed at you (let me guess – you sided with Travon Martin, too). I’ll say it AGAIN, since your reading comprehension is slow (seems to be common these days)….. if the kid had just LEFT the house when he saw the gun, he’d still be alive. But instead he got confrontational (also seems to be common these days – and is exactly the same thing Travon did) and, according to the story, “suddenly reached for something”. AGAIN, it could have been a gun. AGAIN, the dad had no way of knowing. And by the way, the kid WAS wrong – he shouldn’t have been there having sex with an under-aged girl IN HER HOUSE WHILE HER FATHER WAS THERE. But you’re right about the kid being a victim – a victim of his own stupidity.

              • Shawn Blagg

                Well. how do you leave when a man has you at gunpoint. Isn’t the whole reason they say he got shot is because he moved?… Your Logic is severely flawed..

                What you don’t seem to understand is that I am saying that the father is lying or just plain stupid. Nothing about essentially every 17 year old boy has been trying to do with their girlfriend since the dawn of civilization.

                They state very clearly in the Article that the Girl said they weren’t in bed together. The son didn’t see feet under the bed, he saw them sticking out from under the sheets. I doubt the daughter gave the kid a reason to be fearful for her safety. So did the kid say there was a man in the daughter’s room, or someone in bed with her. Well, it seems pretty clear that he was in bed with her from all the information given… the confirmation of this fact is the daughters insistence that they “weren’t in Bed Together”.

                What this tells me is that the father knew from the get-go that this wasn’t some simple “Intruder” or “prowler” situation. The Father Knew full and well going into that room that this was likely just a “boyfriend” of the daughter, even if he didn’t know who he was. He caught the boy in bed with his daughter. She says they “weren’t in bed together” which to any sane and rational being reads as “they weren’t having relations”.. Even if the boy is “confrontational”… from their own admissions, he never attempted to hit or attack the father or daughter.

                Your talk of the Travon Martin Murder is telling. That you would bring it up shows what kind of character you have (none). Any compassionate being would feel for the kid more than anyone else. Even if you think this was an accident or not the fault of the father, they would still feel compassion for a Kid who WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW. HE WAS INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME. You would still think that the kid didn’t deserve it. Instead, you rationalize your stance by calling this kid a punk and saying he deserved it. Disgusting. Simply Disgusting.

              • Shawn Blagg

                Well you are a real piece of work. You show real compassion. Regardless of how You believe this happened or what the father says or what I think happened… This kid died for no good reason. He didn’t commit a crime. He didn’t Attack the Father. He didn’t hurt anyone. He was caught in a bad spot, and was shot. For you to rationalize it as okay by calling the kid a punk and saying he deserved it is only a show of your lack of Character and complete lack of Compassion. You are disgusting.

      • Mark Stuber

        What would you do if he wasn’t a punk. Why are you assuming he is a punk. Because he is black? You have to admit, you made a pretty big assumption;

        • Ascencion Gomez

          He’s a punk because he was stupid enough to argue with someone who has a gun on him and is the father. Only a punk would be dumb enough to do something so stupid.

          • Mark Stuber

            How do you know he argued with the dad? From the word of the person who needs to establish a good self defense case?

            • Michael J Carter

              I want to know where you get the kid is black? There is no mention of the race of any party involved and only a picture of the father (looks maybe Hispanic or white.) I did find more info that states he actually found them in bed with each other and it was one of her other sisters that called 911 after he shot the kid. I’m sorry you don’t go sneaking into a mans daughters room in the middle of the night to have sex with her. Even if it was a crime of passion (fathers can get very protective over there daughters and he has 4). I live in the area and that isn’t a bad area. Most of you are just guessing and assuming what went on. There is a reason they do Grand Jury’s, it will be figured out if he should be charged or not and end of case. Like mention before Texas has a very firm castle/stand your grounds laws. This is a prime case of why I think girls should get half the blame most the time when they think it’s the boys that cause most the troubles. She had to let him in after all.

              • Mark Stuber

                re: “I want to know where you get the kid is black?” I didn’t say the kid was black. Did I? That was just the only explanation I could think of for you calling him “a punk.”

                I grant as an adult, I would never sneak around a man’s house to sleep with his daugher. As I teenager, I may have. But then again, now, I can invite her to my own place or rent a hotel room. A lot of the reasons teenagers act as teenagers is simply because they don’t have the same options as adults. That does not make them punks who deserve to die. When you called him “a punk”, I got the impression you felt he deserved to die.

                I was not a punk at all. I was a very nice boy. A punk is someone who hurts people for the fun of it or steals from other people. Sorry, trying to get laid does not qualify as a punk in my mind. If it does to you, that’s an explanation as to why you called a him “a punk.” it sure did take you awhile to come up with it. At first, you called me names. The name calling, delay, and drama between my question and your actual answer causes me to question your sincerity. I’m still not convinced you didn’t call him a punk just because of his race. You protested too much. You could have just answered, you felt that way becasue he was sneaking around a house. Really, how do you know he was “sneaking.” He was obviously invited in by the daughter. Maybe the daughter just asked him to be quite becasue everyone esle was sleeping? You are still making a lot of assumptions.

                • KevinJ

                  I guess we all have our own definition of “punk”. I didn’t use the word to describe this boy, but… the desire to “get laid” not withstanding…sneaking into anyone’s home, without permission, and with no regard for what the consequences might be, is extremely disrespectful… and “punkish”.

                • Sara

                  The fact that YOU heard punk and YOU thought black because of it makes YOU the racist one. Why do you assume all punks are black? You made a pretty big assumption…

                  • Mark Stuber

                    Where did I assume all punks are black?

                  • Mark Stuber

                    Sara, I ask again. Where did I state the kid was black?

                • disqus_v3SHzvCspj

                  You are industrial strength stupid.

            • MTiz

              You dont need a self defense case for an intruder in your home in the state of Texas. Quite the legal eagle arent you?

              • Mark Stuber

                You probably do if the person was invited in. The daughter admitted to inviting him in. It’s not as cut and dry as you think. I’ve read that the police are going to take the results of their investigation to a grand jury.

                To answer your question more direclty. You are correct an am not an attorney. i doubt you’re one either. So, neither one of us are “legal eagles.”

                • Hawk Winters

                  Invited in by a minor doesn’t qualify.

                  As for where you said he was black: “Because he is black?”

                  That is a statement. If you want to argue about language and how “Punk” might apply, you need to be very careful about what you say yourself.

                  Saying it as: “Because he might have been black?” would have made it a question to support your argument.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    re: “Invited in by a minor doesn’t qualify.” Can you cite me the code or case law which backs up that statement? Because, if that were the case, why would the police bring the results of their investigation to a grand jury? This would be a very cut and dry case. Really, just common sense woould tell you that your statement is wrong.

                    re: “As for where you said he was black: ‘Because he is black?'” Do you know the difference between a period and a question mark? Do you know the difference between a question and a statement?

                • patrickw

                  A minor has no legal authority to invite a person into a household without the parents’ permission, legally speaking. A minor could invite the whole neighborhood in, but they still technically are not invited guests, as they would require parental consent.

                  Further the daughter denies knowing the kid, to the father who has the ultimate say. Thus the kid, in that moment is a criminal trespasser who by all information at that moment was likely about to rape the daughter….

                  • Mark Stuber

                    Could you cite case law or a statute to back that up. It sounds like you are talking out of your ass. I’m not talking out of my ass when I mention that the police plan on taking the results of the investigation to a grand jury. “HCSO investigators said they will present their findings to the Harris County Grand Jury for its consideration.”

                    From the KHOU HOusteon, Texas Web Site. If I post the link, the Libertarian will send my post into pending for days.

              • patrickw

                and when the daughter denies knowing him, well that alone would meet precedent….

          • Mark Stuber

            What does the definition of punk have to do with intelligence? Being dumb does not make you a punk. Being of average intellect does not make one a punk. Being a genious does not make one a punk.

        • Chirpmcgurp

          I vote you, retard troll of today’s article! Congrats are in order!

          • Mark Stuber

            Why, because I challenged your assumption the the did was “a punk”? and speculated as to why you assumed that? If you have some other explanation you have another chance to give it. I just gave you one opurtunity and instead of giving an alternative explaintion to mine, you chose to change the subject by calling me a troll. So far, you have only convinced me more you called him “a punk” simply because he is black.

            • tullers

              Mark, you almost had me seeing your point of view until you resorted to and ad hominem attack (“Take a logic class, you moron”) and whipping out the race card.

              BTW, it seems you are making the association between “punk” and black person.

              • Mark Stuber

                I’m harsh on people who put words in people’s mouth. I think that kind of behaviour should be rediculed. I hope me calling him a moron hurt his feelings. He will be less likely to conduct such behavior in the future.

            • p1bk

              Punk:
              a : a young inexperienced person : beginner, novice;especially : a young man

              b : a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian

              From the article:
              “The 17-year-old began arguing with the father after the daughter denied knowing the teenager.”

              “According to reports, the teen ignored the father’s commands”

              Those two quotes right there answer a few of your questions. Read the article.

              A 17 year old who argues with and ignores the commands of the father of the girl and owner / head of the house he’s in is as matter of fact a “punk”

              I’m sorry you assign race to the definition of punk.

        • Madvideo13

          When does being a punk have to be racial? A punk is someone who’s actions are juvenile and not very bright. But I guess having actions define your character isn’t welcomed anymore in today’s society, we all have to be racists somehow.

        • disqus_v3SHzvCspj

          Didn’t know he was a black punk, but if his feet were sticking out from under the bed he obviously shouldn’t be there. Girl said she didn’t know the punk. Punk makes sudden move. Dead punk. Not stupid anymore.

      • Cadlax

        And you should be in jail.

        • David Gabriel

          And you should calm your tits. The man knew nothing at the time. The daughter lied. If you have a person that you don’t know in your house with your family, you’re gonna be suspicious. If the daughter said she didn’t know him, more than likely the dad would believe her. I know I would.
          Now I would give him a chance to leave the house, but if he was grabbing for something I’m gonna shoot first.

          • Cadlax

            So if the dad didn’t know much about the situation. The first course of action is to kill the kid? Ok.. see how that holds up in court.

            Where is this idea that he was “reaching for something” coming from? The dad who killed the kid?

            And no, I won’t calm down, everyone in this thread is trying to defend this guy who needlessly killed a person.

            • KevinJ

              He called 911 first. So his “first course of action” was to hold the kid there, and call for the authorities. He didn’t just blast the kid immediately. Google the story for more details. And you can’t just dismiss the father’s statement without rebuttal… and there is none. Just wild ass speculation on your part.

              • Mark Stuber

                Calling 911 does not give you legal immunity from murder.

      • Mark Stuber

        Then you shouldn’t have a gun.

      • Shawn Blagg

        I love how you rationalize murder by painting the victim as a “punk”… So tell me, Ken, What crime did he commit?… What Shoot-able Crime did he commit?… Explain to me why you feel this kid “Deserved” to be Murdered.

    • Mark Stuber

      For example, I am sure the boy was not wearing enough clothing to conceal any kind of weapon.

      • KevinJ

        Well, I am glad you’re “sure”. And it doesn’t say he “reached into his pants”. A person could in fact “reach” for something in their clothing on the chair or floor. You are really really fscking reaching, and failing absolutely miserably.

        • Mark Stuber

          How many times a day do you reach for something? Can some one claim self defense and shoot you every time you reach for something?

          • KevinJ

            When someone is pointing a gun at me? Not very often.

            • Mark Stuber

              And your point is? Still, I don’t think someone reaching for someone constitutes deadly force. I do think pointing a gun at someone constiuttues deadly force. As you just implied, the teenage boy had reason to fear for his life. So, far, I don’t see where the man had did.

              • KevinJ

                It doesn’t matter what YOU think. It matters what the father thought, in the middle of the night, in his daugther’s bedroom, when confronted by an uninivited (as far as he knew) male, who was not cooperative, and “reaching for something.”

                • Mark Stuber

                  It matter what a jurry thinks a “reasonable person” would think. Not the father. If the law was written the way you imply, it would be impossible to convict anyone of any kind of homicide except involuntary man slaughter. Who could deny the testimony of anyone talking about what they were thinking?

  • Prince of Alaries

    He will never date his daughter , again .

    • Flyingguns

      yup and good riddance to that idiot. he got what he deserved

      • Mark Stuber

        If a teenage boy deserves death for trying to have sex, 95 per cent of all men deserve to die. What an absurd statement.

      • Will

        You’re a moron. I hope this damn dad and his ignorant daughter get manslaughter charges.

  • Peter Johnson

    I’ll bet daughter never gets a date in that town again !

    • Mark Stuber

      She will. People are crazy when they are in love.

      • David Owen

        The thirst is real

        • Justin 4 Liberty

          LOLOLOLOLOL

    • ugo2020

      haha – good obsevation

    • rudeawakeningxxx

      that’s should be the least of her worries. someone just died because of her.

  • Guest

    I have a feeling things are going to be a bit uncomfortable around the dinner table

  • Guest

    I have a feeling things are going to be a bit uncomfortable around the dinner table

  • Seamus Cameron

    I feel for everyone in this story, except the Daughter! Nasty little C@nt should be strung up for her dishonesty.

    • ggram7

      since her lies cost the young mans life she should face prosecution. There has to be some accoutntablity.

    • Mark Stuber

      Obviously, she’s very scared of her dad.

      • fasdfasd

        Scared of her dad or scared of the consequences of her actions?

        • Mark Stuber

          Both, they are not mutually exclusive.

      • Whiteknight

        WHITE KNIGHT OF THE YEAR…..

        • Frank Castle

          no, just excusing another snot nosed kid… who did WRONG.. some “knight”

          • Mark Stuber

            I didn’t excuse anything. I was making an observation. Do you disagree with the observation? You think she wasn’t scared of her dad?

            • fliteking

              It’s clear you are afraid of her dad, relax and use some common sense.

              It’s almost as if you are defending this chick . . . no reason to do that.

            • Christopher Michael Moore

              Aren’t criminals afraid of cops, especially cops with a reputation for abuse? Does that absolve them of the crime? No.

              • Mark Stuber

                No, point it is this fear combined with the fact that he had no weapons to reach for would make it very unlikely he “reached for something.”

                • Christopher Michael Moore

                  The first thing that a body does when it goes into any kind of run, toward, away, sideways, etc., is to move the hands. This is done in a quick motion that could very well appear to be a person reaching for something. It sounded to me reading the article and watching the news feed that it was a panic attempt by the boy to run. After all, the girl was denying knowledge of him, let alone sneaking him inside. She threw him under the bus, and her dad is pointing a gun. He was trying to run. In close quarters. Yeah, it looked like he was reaching for something.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    That sounds plausible. However, I don’t think the dad even tried to determine if what he was “reaching for” was a weapon or not. He had time to do that. It takes one 10th the time to pull a trigger as it does to reach down, grab a weapon, raise back up, and aim. If the dad was just assuming it was a weapon (as one poster said he had a right to do), he is guilty of manslaughter/murder two (what ever the call it in Texas.)

                    • Christopher Michael Moore

                      Tensions were high all around. A nervous trigger finger is the one most regretted later. The Dad might not have taken time to determine the boy’s intent, but weapons training says not to take that time, or you might be dead. And since the dad was to the best of his knowledge, defending his home and daughter from an intruder, he will probably not get any charges leveled at him.

      • derpleton

        No way that doesnt fit into the Republican (I know this is called the Libertarian Republic but I really doubt 90% of the commentators are Libertarian in any way. Unfortunately we get alot of the Fox Nation crowd here) narrative that all kids are “snot nosed” ingrates.

        Nevermind that she didn’t shoot the kid, that sons and daughters do things like this all the time, its her fault because she is irresponsible and blah blah blah blah blah. That is what “Conservatives” do they simplify the situation so they can demonize the groups they don’t like.

        • KevinJ

          Well, the Libertarian point of view would probably state that the boy should be held accountable for his actions. And he was.

          • Mark Stuber

            I don’t think the Libertarian point of view is that if a teenager invites another teenager over and a parent drvsaproves that, the parent has a right to kill.

            • Micah

              The teenager was being aggressive and reaching for something, which makes it self defense. People reap what they sow.

              • Mark Stuber

                “reaching for something”? How many times a day do you reach for something?

                • Micah

                  You must have missed the part about him being aggressive.

                  Either way, the kid was being an idiot. I’m not saying shooting him was the best reaction either. What I am saying is the kid could have avoided being shot if he’d acted smarter.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    He was scared. Hell, he had someone pointing a damn gun at him.

                    • Micah

                      That tends to happen when you hide uninvited under a bed in a stranger’s house.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      He was not a stranger. He knew the daughter. Where have you been? Lol. If you can’t keep up, sign off.

                    • Micah

                      The daughter said she didn’t invite him. The dad certainly didn’t invite him. The fact that he was invited by the daughter is irrelevant since that wasn’t made known until it was too late. You keep up.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      He was not a “stranger” in the house as he was invited by the daughter and then told to hide from daddy and his gun. The daughter lied. Get it now? She really did know him and invited him in the house this making him a guest in the home. Don’t believe the daughter. She lied…child murdered…never know the full story….good bye.

                    • Micah

                      Gena,

                      These important facts that you pointed out were not made known until after the shooting, so for all intents and purposes, from the dad’s point of view, it was a stranger in the house!

                      You are missing my whole aim by pointing out obvious details from the article because what I said, and the intention behind it is just going over your head.

                      We will know the full story. That’s what due process is for. We can also thank due process that if the Dad was in the wrong it will be made revealed by an impartial jury and in light of the evidence, not by us on an internet message board.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Lol @ you for even suggestion we will ever get the full story. The main character in the “story” has been murdered. They were waiting for the police and he got shot before they arrived. I didn’t say that I think the father of the teenager girl should go to jail. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and I haven’t seen the trial yet but I think to say we will one day get the full truth is a bit naive. You don’t think that the boy tried to tell the hot head with the pistol that he knew his daughter? I do. Common sense.

                    • Micah

                      I don’t know I think it’s dangerous to determine guilt from an article.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Oh but it is you who are so smart Micah. You seem to think we will get the full truth one day just because it will go to trial. Smart one. LMAO!!

                    • Micah

                      No, not the full truth just the best possibility of the truth. We can’t ever get the full truth because our knowledge is limited, so we do the best we can :)

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Because the victim is dead and can’t tell his side of the story. Correct?

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Do I think by this article that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Does commons sense tell me that he was told by the teenage boy who was begging for his life that he knew his daughter? Yes.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Do I think the man had a right to protect his family? Yes. Do I believe that he felt his family was in danger while he was the one with the gun? Absolutely not. Can I be 100% sure of that ? No. This is a lot like the Zimmerman trial because we will never know exactly what happened and if the accused felt scared for his own life.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Of course it is. Who said he was guilty? I missed that.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      or who said he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I think he’s a hot head and a bully and I find it hard to believe he was the one scared but I never said he should be found guilty.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      I won’t have decide that until the trial.

                    • Micah

                      Good, then I’m glad we agree that he deserves a fair trial and that neither of us alone can determine guilt

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Of course he does. Most people on here would agree with that. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t disgusted that a child was murdered over something that is harmless

                    • Micah

                      Don’t you realize that in asserting that it is harmless you are determining guilt? If the dad shot a “harmless” boy, then he is guilty, whereas if he shot a “Malevolent” boy, then he would not be.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Who had the gun? How about defenseless. Better?

                    • Ryan Michael Miller

                      Shouldn’t even go to trial. Would be a waste on tax money because it would be like charging Waldo for evading.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      It should go to trial and if the state issues a good attorney to this trial he will do what he can to catch the accused in lies and discredit his story. You are sort of out there dude.

                    • Ryan Michael Miller

                      Lies? There is no evidence, for a trial. You have to have substantial evidence, to go to trial. There is none. Only, disbelief of story and that isn’t evidence. Any defense lawyer would laugh and quickly would defend this father because, it’s a guaranteed win.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      There is a dead body, How much more evidence do you need Ryan? Can you imagine what this country would be like if we didn’t go to trial over murder or manslaughter?

                    • Ryan Michael Miller

                      How do you know it’s murder or manslaughter? There’s not ANY evidence, saying that it is. You can’t just go charging someone or trying people without evidence, to back up the charges, to be able to even get to a conviction.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      re: “There is no evidence, for a trial. ” I dead kid and a lame excuse, “He reached for something.”

                    • Mark Stuber

                      What’s the burdern of proof for trial?

                  • Mark Stuber

                    What does “being aggressive” mean? Name calling? That could mean anything. I’ve had cops call me “agressive” fore merely rolling my eyes.

                • Kelly Carden

                  Bro, after reading some of your posts I gather 3 things about you. 1) you are very intelligent. 2) you either like playing devils advocate, or just like to argue. 3) you are so politically slanted you just want to try to make anyone who disagrees with you feel dumb. (doesn’t matter if you are right or left.) So stop with the game. He was “reaching for something” that must have made the father fell unsafe. Its not like he was reaching into the fridge for a soda. Its not like the parent disapproved and just shot the poor guy. His daughter must have put on a pretty good show. I’d be pissed but I wouldn’t shoot. If my other kid found feet coming out from under the bed, then I would very well get my gun. And my daughter swore she didn’t know who he was, I would be forced to assume that he was an intruder. Then if he began to argue or get aggressive with me and reached for something that he could use as a weapon I would probably react. Which in this case would be the poorest choice. Not poorest judgement, because based on what I know would be the correct choice. But poor choice because the facts would be inaccurate.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    He should know his daughter well enough to know she was lying. Come on.
                    How many times have you or someone you knew did something like this growing up? We don’t know if he was reaching for anything because he is no longer here to tell his story.

                    • Guest

                      Isn’t the point of telling a lie to be deceptive? You were pointing out that we aren’t getting the full story from the dead guy. Seems like you’re violating your own advice by reading details and intentions into someone you don’t know personally

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Yes, the point of lying would be to deceive. I happen to know my kids well enough to know if they were lying. They also know me well enough to not freak out over stuff like this. They are not scared of me but they do respect me and want my respect in return =) I’m not a hot head with a pistol ready to shoot. I was pointing out we are not getting any story from the child that was murdered. We will never know if he reached for something or not.That is what I pointed out. Get your last comment in Micah and then find someone else to argue with. I have things to do with my family.

                    • Ryan Michael Miller

                      doesn’t matter, it’s justified. Unless, the daughter says the father was in the wrong and it didn’t go down like that but as far as proof for courts or the DA to put any charges, none.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      That’s true and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and all that. I just think this could have been handled better.

                    • Faniel

                      I agree. It could be that he is a very hot tempered father and the daughter, knowing that, still invited the boy over, probably not knowing he’d end up dead, but still wanted to get some play.. and hence, knowing his hot temper, she lied… Plenty of people shoot people in the heat of the moment, it’s called a crime of passion, although usually that is other circumstances, but its all relative. Maybe he did say “Yeah, I was screwing your daughter!” and that got him so pissed he pulled the trigger.. Stranger things have happened. And yes, we don’t know if he was reaching for anything, bc we ALWAYS hear this tagline from people- “They were reaching for something”, particularly innocent civilians shot by cops. I understand there is a percentage of people who reach for their Wallets and all, but at this point, I think we are all privy to the fact that you DONT reach for anything when a gun is pointed at you!

                    • Gortron

                      I understand your point, you should recognize reality when there’s a gun pointed at you, and remain still. However, that does not excuse shooting someone, when there were most likely better options available. There are very few times when you should take a humans life, self defense being one of them. I don’t buy that argument in this case though. You can guess why the kid was there in the first place, he probably doesn’t have a gun because he’s seventeen, and you can see that your daughter is unharmed, leading you to believe this is probably a kid that your daughter brought into the house, and is denying she knows to cover herself. At least if I were on a jury, that’s what I’d believe any reasonable person would do. I’m betting he’ll end up getting charged with voluntary manslaughter. That’s assuming the parents of the dead kid don’t come after him first, which I would in this case.

                    • Faniel

                      If it comes out that the father knew the boy and or the boy was his daughters boyfriend, it will be REALLY hard for the father to pretend he was fearing for his life.. That’s what I’m looking forward to hearing.. but, Sadly we hardly ever end up finding out how these things pan out, so it makes it aggravating.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    Re: ” Its not like the parent disapproved and just shot the poor guy.” Actually, I think it is very probably that is what happened.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    Re: “Then if he began to argue or get aggressive with me and reached for
                    something that he could use as a weapon I would probably react.” What do you think was within arms length of that teenage boy in a teenage girl’s bedroom, that could be used as a weapon? Her tampons? Her purse? I still want to know how he was dressed at the time. Did he even have clothes on that could conceal a weapon?

                • Jack Frost

                  None while someone is pointing a gun at me! And I tend to limit my arguing with people pointing guns as well. He is a victim of the widely held but erroneous belief that someone armed can’t shoot under certain circumstances. As an armed officer who dealt with scores of homeless folks, the oft recited refrain was, “I’ll take you down and you can’t shoot me because I am unarmed!”. To which I always replied, “But since I am armed I must assume you are trying to take my weapon and I will be forced to shoot you in self defense!”. The slow dawning of that reality was obvious in almost every instance. Plus, the teenager was angry the girl did a Judas on him, plus the dad was denying him his perceived right for sex or consort, or whatever you wish to name it.

                  I was robbed at gunpoint forty years ago while in the military by three males with guns. I did not move or reach or argue while they removed my wallet, watch and ring. Hence I lived to see today.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    My point is “reaching for something” does not rise to the level of lethal force.

                    • Mike Roberts Sr.

                      are you kidding? he’s in MY house in the MIDDLE of the night, in MY daughters room arguing and REACHING for something in which he shouldnt have been doing none of these things in the FIRST place, then hence my only thought would be its either him or me with NO questions asked until its over, fortunatly it was him…

                    • Mark Stuber

                      You would be guilty of murder then. What is in your daughter’s room that could be reached for that could be reasonably percieved as a weapon?

                    • Mike Roberts Sr.

                      Oh yes it does there would be no jury to convict let alone no arrest… I have 4 grown kids ALL in law enforcement, do you must be some liberal looking for an argument????

                    • Gortron

                      Supposedly reaching for something, most likely a phone based on the fact he was already in the room with your daughter, and she’s clearly unharmed. I will remember to stay away from you and your family. And if we ever do meet and I “reach for something” you’d better hope you draw faster, because it is most definitely a gun. You tough guys think that because we have a right o bear arms, we also have the right to shoot anyone who’s on our property at anytime for any reason. That is simply not true, look up some cases and you’ll see that there are very specific conditions for self defense. Don’t take my word for it though, just try it and be charged with murder or voluntary manslaughter like this guy probably will.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      These people are blood thirsty. These people are the reason we need more gun control. You can keep trying to reason with them if you choose Mark but I see violence and ignorance here. Take care.

                    • Faniel

                      The last thing you do when being confronted with a gun in a grown mans house is “reach” for something. Otherwise, all bets are off. Not saying the dad was “right”, we don’t know.. But logic says you don’t reach for something, just ask all the blacks that get shot “reaching for their wallets” when cops have guns drawn

                    • Mark Stuber

                      When did I argue that “reaching for something” was the smart thing to do? I don’t know why: but people at the Federal Republic tend to make straw man arguments even more the the general blogsophere.

                    • Faniel

                      Um, I didn’t say you said it was “smart.” You stated “reaching for something does no constitute lethal force,” and I responded with what I responded with because it doesn’t seem to be a logical reaction from someone in his predicament. Also, plenty of people have been shot “reaching” for things, and many cops have used it to “justify lethal force” as you put it. It is all relative on the case itself. Not everything is an argument buddy.. Sometimes people just like to comment.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      This thread is just so one sided it seems a little easy to be on the defensive. I personally feel sorry for all who are involved but especially the teenager and his family.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    Yeah, he was 17….a kid. I don’t know if he was a mature 17 year old or not but he was still 17.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    He was only 17. I don’t know how mature he was but just because you knew how to react doesn’t mean everyone knows how to react when they have a gun pulled on them. Also, who said he reached for anything? We will never know. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty and in this case we will never know what happened so the man will more than likely not do time. I’m not sure if he should do time. I have to wait for the trial. I do think he ran his household by instilling fear in his family and that gun made him all the braver.

                    • Ryan Michael Miller

                      You are sticking to the “how do we know, if he reached for something?” argument and it doesn’t even matter. The boy shouldn’t of been there, the daughter, should have told the truth, when confronted. You have to take the father and daughter’s word for it because the boy is dead. Otherwise, you’ll look like a complete ass, on a thread like this. Case in point ^

                    • Gena Surratt

                      There will be an attorney to speak for the young man who was murdered. That makes no sense what you said. If that’s the case then no reason for anyone to be tried for anything as long as the victim is killed. I just don’t get where you are coming from on this one.

                    • Ryan Michael Miller

                      You can’t try someone, based on a doubt. Or charge someone, for that matter.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Well see, there is a dead teenager and a loaded gun (literally) so yes, this is certainly enough to go to trial.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      There is also the daugter’s brother and foresince evidence and the crime scene. Was there anything in the teenage girl’s bedroom that could be reached for that could be preceived as a weapon? That’s just off the top of my head. I am sure a professional could think of more

                    • Gena Surratt

                      The boy had a right to be there if he was invited. We are sticking to how do we know because the state’s defense has not taken this to trial yet.

                  • Faniel

                    Jack,
                    I agree! And I like how you put “did a Judas on him”. I haven’t heart that in a while, but I like it! Very true. I also agree that arguing, “reaching for something” or “ignoring the commands” of a man with a loaded gun (assuming the gun wasn’t concealed at the time of the “confrontation”) wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do. I would like to know when the father actually brandished the gun, but it will be difficult to know the real story with the other party deceased.

                    • Gortron

                      Saying that it’s ok for this guy to shoot the kid because the kid should’ve known not to move with a gun pointed at him, is like saying it was ok for colonists to slaughter millions of native americans because the natives should have known better than to fight the guys who had guns. “I’m not saying it was ok for him to shoot the kid, I’m just saying the kid should have known not to move when there’s a gun pointed at him”. Were you going to say something like that? Because if you were you have nothing meaningful to contribute.

                    • Faniel

                      Your right! I don’t need to contribute anything to the conversation because you are really good at “paraphrasing” what others have and have NOT even said. Thanks!

                    • Faniel

                      Your right! I don’t need to contribute anything to the conversation because you are really good at “paraphrasing” what others have and have NOT even said. Thanks!

                    • Gortron

                      Glad I could be of help man, that trick usually works. Even if you’re wrong about what they were going to say, it usually makes people mad enough to say something meaningless. Feel free to use it.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    This was a teenage boy. Not you. Most teenagers don’t know when explaining does you know good. He was probably trying to explain that he was invited in. He was probably pleading for his life. What could the kid reach for in a teenage girl’s room?

                    • Rachel

                      So you would rather assume that the father was a bloodthirsty trigger-happy maniac who randomly shot a teenager just for being there than assum that the teenage girl and the teenage boy made some mistakes which culminated in a horrific tragedy? You are ridiculous.

                      Let’s think of it this way: What if the daughter was telling the truth and there really was an intruder in her room? Would the father be justified in defending himself and his children then? Just because you think he should have seen through his daughter’s lies doesn’t mean that he did. Lots of children deceive their parents.

                      And by the way, if you think there’s an intruder in your daughter’s room, and you see him move after you have a gun pointed at him and told him to remain still, you wouldn’t sit and think “Hmmmm what could he be reaching for?” You would think “he’s in my house, I don’t know who he is, and he’s moving.”

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Re: “So you would rather assume that the father was a bloodthirsty
                      trigger-happy maniac who randomly shot a teenager just for being
                      there than assume that the teenage girl and the teenage boy made some
                      mistakes which culminated in a horrific tragedy? You are ridiculous.”

                      First of all, you are creating a false dichotomy. It is possible for all
                      parties to be responsible. Just because one is does not mean the
                      others are not.

                      You are also contradicting yourself. If the father did shoot the boy for
                      being there, then it was not random. Do you even know what the word
                      random means? I think, you threw it in there because it sounds
                      erudite.

                      No. I am not assuming the father is blood thirsty. My conclusion that
                      the father was probably not acting in self defense was not an
                      assumption I pulled out of my ass. I have stated several times on
                      hear, why I think there is a good chance the shooting was not
                      justified. In a nutshell, “reaching for something” in these
                      circumstances seems like a lame excuse. Nor do I think the father
                      randomly shot the kid. I think there is a good chance he was angry at
                      this specific kid. I don’t think who threw a bunch of names in a hat
                      and shot the person whose name was on the paper he pulled out of that
                      hat.

                      I’m not assuming anything. I want there to be a trial. If I was assuming
                      he was guilty I would advocate that the father be summurally
                      executed.

                      Re; ‘Let’s think of it this way: What if the daughter was telling the
                      truth and there really was an intruder in her room? Would the father
                      be justified in defending himself and his children then? “

                      What a total straw man. I never suggest the father’s right to self
                      defense is was dependent upon whether or not the daughter was telling
                      the truth or not. I have repeatedly made the point that what the
                      daughter said was irrelevant. I have made the point several times,
                      that you can’t shoot someone simply for being an intruder. I don’t
                      buy the dad’s excuse that the boy was “reaching for something.”
                      There was nothing for the boy to reach for. By the way, “reaching
                      for something” does not justify homicide. You have to be at least
                      reaching for a weapon. Where there any other weapons in the the
                      teenage daughter’s room? Was the boy even dressed enough to conceal
                      any weapons? We know the boy was not reaching for a weapon. Do you
                      believe the boy reached for nothing so fast, the father did not have
                      time to determine what the boy was allegedly reaching for or could
                      not give the kid a verbal warning? Even if the boy had already raped
                      the girl, once the crime had stopped, he had the boy covered with a
                      gun, and the police had been called, he still could only shoot in
                      self defense or the defense of others. You can’t shoot someone as
                      punishment.

                      Re: “And by the way, if you think there’s an intruder in your
                      daughter’s room, and you see him move after you have a gun pointed at
                      him and told him to remain still, you wouldn’t sit and think “Hmmmm
                      what could he be reaching for?” “

                      How do you know, the father told the boy not to move? Nothing in the
                      article indicates this. All we have is the father saying, “he
                      reached for something.” The father did not say, he kept reaching
                      for something even after, I utter “unt uh”. You also seem to miss
                      the point that ,I don’t accept at face value that the boy was
                      reaching for something. I have made that point several times, also.
                      Also, just because the father told the boy to stand still, does not
                      mean the boy did not have a right to move. Again, “reaching for
                      something” in no way justifies homicide.

                      The time it takes to pull the trigger is way less then the amount of time
                      it takes to reach for a weapon, pick it up, point it, then fire. The
                      father had time to determine if what the boy was reaching for was a
                      weapon or not

                      Funny, you accuse me of assuming, yet, you did not notice all the
                      assumptions you were asking me to make in the hypothetical scenarios
                      you threw at me.

                      Think
                      about all the hypothetical scenarios you have thrown at me and think
                      about how much you are assuming about what happened.

                  • Gortron

                    Right, but the guys who robbed you are still criminals right? If you could have found out who they were, you might have sought legal retribution. You can’t excuse criminal behavior because of stupid reactions. Also, the kid was exactly that, a kid. How can you expect him to know how to react? Don’t say “when I was seventeen, I would have known better”, because that’s useless you are two different people, and “would haves” don’t prove anything.

              • David Chalk

                Thats what the shooter says….the murdered is no longer able to tell his story. The Dad may of very well got mad enough and decided to just murder him, then made up the story he went for something…..they all were ignorant IMHO.

                • bmartin79

                  The dead tell no tales and if the boy was shot but survived the dad could have been charged with attempted murder and medical bills but since he died it is self defense . Thank god for Texas law .

                • Micah

                  This is why we have due process to determine guilt, Mr. Chalk.

                  The dead do get to tell their tales thanks to the American court system which will utilize witnesses, criminal record, impartial jury, and a host of other factors to help determine the dad’s guilt or innocence.

                  • Faniel

                    Yup. Whether we like it or not (and we should).. like they say, it is better to let ten guilty go free than an innocent get put in jail. Due process is here to protect us, until it, along with the rest of our rights as American citizens, gets stripped away.

                • Faniel

                  Agreed..Any decent defense attorney would advise him to play up or add in the “reaching for something” story

                  • Mark Stuber

                    No, any decent defense attorney would have told him to keep his mouth shut. That statement would not have helped him if were on the jury.

                    • Faniel

                      Yes, you keep your mouth shut, obviously, that’s the smart thing to do. He may not have necessarily been the one to make that statement to editorial, it just stated “reports say”,… the atty. may have done made that comment. What I was saying that any decent defense atty. would want the jury and public to perceive the boy as a threat, as in reaching for a possible weapon, or what have you. Not necessarily from the defedants mouth, as putting defendants on the stand can be tricky and usually doesn’t bode well. However, there must be something to imply to the jury that he felt threatened, not just that she had her boyfriend over, as it may come out he already knew the boy, and then what would be the reason to shoot?

                • Mark Stuber

                  Yea, “went for somethimg” seems contrived. If it was a real weapon that did would know what it was. What could have he been reaching for in a teenage girl’s bedroom besides his own clothes?

                  • Juanita EastCoast Morales-Saja

                    Condom! Nice SHINY wrapper…..

              • Georgie

                probably reaching for his flippin underwear!!!

                • bmartin79

                  Or a used condom.

              • Gena Surratt

                Were you there? Or are you going by what the lying teenage daughter said. Or the hot head dad that everyone is scared of ? With good reason they are scared of him. He has a temper and a gun. Like most republicans smh.

                • Micah

                  Gena – you bring a relevant point that objectivity is hard to determine from an article. This is why we require due process by law. I do feel safe saying that if what the article says is true, there was a lot of stupidity going on on all ends but the boy was kind of asking for it.

                  Sounds like the girl denied knowing him and the boy denied knowing her, so if you’re a dad and you have it from your daughter’s mouth that the guy under her bed is a stranger, he’s pretty warranted in acting in self defense at that point. The dad probably thought she was in danger of being raped or worse.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    I would have called 911 but that’s just me. We will never know what happened because the teenager was murdered. He did not break in or break any laws that we know of and yet he was murdered in cold blood. Two more words for you, GUN CONTROL.

                    • Micah

                      I agree that we need gun control, but not through coercion and forced participation.

                      We need to educate people on how to handle guns, and how to use them wisely. That is the best form of control on guns. Putting laws in place only gets guns out of the hands of good people. Criminals who are already willing to break the law anyway just break it again to get a gun.

                      The economics of it can’t be defeated even if the law exists, guns exist de facto and unless we can destroy all forms of modern manufacturing, industrialization, and scientific progress, we can’t erase guns anymore than we could erase the modern internal combustion engine. Even if we deleted all blueprints of these engines, science would still reign and eventually people would discover it again. Guns are the same way. As long as there is a demand for guns, people who are willing to break the law to sell them will do so. People who are not willing to break the law, good people, will follow the law and end up becoming the victims anyway.

                      I think the question is was shooting the boy the right response. When it goes to court the dad may be charged with manslaughter, if it can be shown that it was done using excessive force, i.e. the girl begged him to stop, told the truth, etc. The criminology and forensics people that look into this are actually experts, unlike us :P They will check the dad’s criminal record, neighbors, friends, etc.. to see if he has a history of violent explosions or if he’s a well-tempered person. If he’s the kind of person that flies off the handle a lot, he will have a much harder time defending himself in court.

                    • Gena Surratt

                      Okay. I agree with what you wrote,

                  • Faniel

                    I know we are just hypothesizing here, but don’t you think the boy would have claimed to have known her? As opposed to denied knowing her? That doesn’t seem to make sense, I would think he would say “No, sir , she invited me!” as opposed to “Nope, just here hanging out, I don’t know any one here”.. Or maybe its a typo.. Just checking!

                  • Mark Stuber

                    No, he wasn’t warranted even if the daugher had been in danger of being raped, becasue she clearly no longer was at that point.

                • Ryan Michael Miller

                  How do you know he has a temper or that he is even republican? Every point you tried to make is a fail because of your bias thinking. You are too emotional about this subject to make any sense, Gena. You have to think from the middle of the road, not one side or the other. That is the real problem with today, people like you.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    She didn’t claim he was a Republican. Nice straw man.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    More like people like you who want to just wash their hands to stuff instead of going to trial when possible murder is involved. Do not try and tell me I’m emotional. You don’t know that. Stereotyping me because I’m a woman are you?

              • Faniel

                Where does it say he was being “aggressive?” I love how people put things into their owns words on here.
                It said he was “arguing” and “ignored commands” (which IDK who would do that with a man with a loaded gun infront of him, sounds a tad contrived but who knows) Its key for the defense to add in that he “reached” for something, so that it would appear that the father shot him in fear for his life. Whether he really did or didn’t, we will garner from the testimony of the daughter (Who has already been deemed a liar) and maybe the son, who may have witnessed it and the father.

              • Mark Stuber

                What was he reaching for in a teenage girl’s room? Besides, no one has the right to shoot you merely for “reaching for something” “Being agressive” is too vauge of a term to be of any relevance to this discussion.

              • Juanita EastCoast Morales-Saja

                He was probably reaching for the condom he was going to use on the daughter.

              • Gortron

                Very true, which is why this dude should end up charged with voluntary manslaughter. The boy is dead, he’ll never get to tell his side of the story. We’ve also learned the girl isn’t trustworthy, and would probably lie in court to protect her dad. This is what you call a tragedy folks, blame on all sides, a preventable useless death, and no solid answers.

            • KevinJ

              If you do something stupid and end up dead… you have to own part of that.

              • derpleton

                That is a gross oversimplification of the Libertarian point of view, Personal responsibility and being “held accountable” are not one in the same. That is just simply being vindictive and petty while disguising it with high minded rhetoric, and if you want to do that the Rs and Ds are already perfect platforms for that kind of ignorance.

                Personal Responsibility also extends to everyone involved not just the guy you don’t like. The kid was invited in, he was not trespassing, he should have left but was he really given a chance? The world will never know. What could he have reached for in the daughters room?

                Besides most people here are blaming the girl, which is what I was criticizing, so I am not sure what your response has to do with anything.

            • mike

              I thikn you went to the Derek Zoolander school for kids who can’t read good. If you actually knew how to read you would understand that in the eyes of the father, since hte daughter denied knowing the boy, the boy is an intruder. She denied knowing him. That’s the main point you’re glossing over, so your post can fit your BELIEFS.

              • Mark Stuber

                Really? Was the girl’s story believable?

                • Kelly Carden

                  We don’t know, ultimately these kinds of debates are moo-points (like a cows opinion it doesn’t really matter) because we weren’t there. She may have put on an act worthy of an oscar. Because I like to believe in people i’m going to assume that it was. And because she is his daughter I’m going to assume that he would be forced to believe it over the boy pleading to be let go. All criminals plead when the tables are turned.

                  • KevinJ

                    LOL to the Joey reference.

                  • Gena Surratt

                    Pleading for his life you mean. If someone pulls a gun on you it is normal to think your life is in danger. He was pleading for his life.

                • KevinJ

                  Was it refuted?? You guys seem to think the police are going to stick their necks out, going after a guy that shot an unidentified man in his daughter’s bedroom, with absolutely ZERO evidence that contradicts their story. They won’t.

                  • Mark Stuber

                    When did any of us claim the cops are going to be sticking their necks out? The cops already said they are going to present their findings to a grand jury. I don’t think conducting an investigation as “sticking their necks out.”

                    • KevinJ

                      No one said there shouldn’t be an investigation. But based on YOUR statements, and those of the other rampant speculator here, you want them to formulate a case based solely on “We don’t believe the Father” . Absolutely NO way they get a jury to convict on “I think he’s lying”. Don’t try to take the neutral impartial ground here. You’ve put up a huge fight to win the property on your side of the fence in this discussion. Own it like a man.

                    • Mark Stuber

                      Your post did not answer my question. When did I claim the “cops are sticking their necks out?”

                  • Ryan Michael Miller

                    I totally agree.

            • fliteking

              Stuber uses an extreme example to make a broad vague point showing he thinks libertarian parents “Lay In Wait” . . . . night vision goggles on . . . . finger on the trigger . . . . Nope, does not happen champ . . . or should I say “Super Indoctrinated Liberal”

              • Mark Stuber

                No fliteking, I did the exact opposite. You must not know how conjunctions work or must not know what the word “not” means.

                I wrote, “I don’t think the Libertarian point of view is …”, which short hand for “I don’t think the Libertarian point of view is . . . “

            • Gena Surratt

              I totally agree with this. If anyone in that house was “scared” or felt “threatened” by this teenager, they should have called the police. People can pretend they never did things like sneak into a friend’s house or they can pretend their kids never did or never will but in reality, this is a common thing for teens to do.

        • Cadlax

          Yeah, I wish they would just stick to their cesspool of fox news and stop polluting everything else.

        • Mark Stuber

          Sorry, I really can’t make since of your post. I really can’t see how it is related to my post. Did you intend for that to be a response to me?

          • derpleton

            It was a misplaced comment and definitely sarcasm. You insinuated that she was afraid of her father and based on the other responses I felt that you were somehow attempting to state that it wasn’t completely her fault.

        • David Chalk

          Look who is playing the demon politics card…your the one demonizing…..what a joke and hypocrite.

          • derpleton

            Demon politics? It’s You’re not your.

            No I am not the “the one” demonizing, you don’t even know what demonizing means apparently. I am definitely criticizing conservatives but I am not demonizing anyone, I am not saying they deserve to be punished, I am not insinuating that they are responsible for someones death, or the state of society at large.

            It certainly is a touch hypocritical, I will freely admit that, but you are the joke because you are an idiot.

            • fliteking

              Ahhhhh derpster pulls the old “…you are an idiot” idiom . . . the folks at the DNC are going to be disappointed in your name calling skills.

              • derpleton

                Its not an idiom idiot. I’m not really concerned what the DNC things you partisan dipshit, I am not a democrat. I am a Libertarian and I come to the comment feed here to troll Republicans that come here because Judge Nap or some other Fox Nation shill links to it.

        • Kelly Carden

          Personally I don’t understand how anyone can politicize what happened. Its not about me being Conservative or Liberal. I find a strange person in the house. I hold him at gunpoint so I can have him arrested, my daughter swears that she didn’t bring him in, he begins to argue with me, then reaches to grab a weapon (i’m going to assume) I shoot to protect my family and I. While I would generally agree the daughter should be at fault, as a parent I’m going to place ultimate blame on the father. Two reasons, your telling me that you can’t tell your daughter is lying to your face? When I was a kid ya I could get away with random things, but when it came down to it my parents knew when I was lying. And the other reason, bad parenting. Weather like someone else said she is afraid of him, or she disrespected him enough to sneak a boy into the house. My son is very little but already knows the look. He isn’t afraid of me, but very much knows when I don’t like something he is about to do.

          • disqus_9nWqwQt106

            Believe me, after raising two teenagers, I can tell you that they can look you in the eye and lie regardless of what you’ve taught them. Your son will do things growing up you’d never dream of. Teenagers are inherently selfish and many will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. You can be a great parent and have a teenager who makes poor choices. To wake up in your own home and have a stranger in your home will immediately cause the average person to become defensive. This girl’s poor choices cost someone their life.

            • Ryan Michael Miller

              Exactly!

          • Ryan Michael Miller

            Not all parent’s know when their kid is lying. Sometimes, they think they’re lying, even when they’re not. My parents definitely did not know when I was lying, sometimes. Plus, not all parents are good at detecting a lie. Unbiased thinking, is best for discussions or debates.

        • Henry J Swift

          derp, Your such a liberal tard. Why are you commenting on this site if your so left winged. Shouldn’t you be sucking up to your almighty lord and commander not in charge on cnn or nbc!

          • derpleton

            Because I am a Libertarian not a “liberal” you Republican retard. Though Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are closely related, but you wouldnt know that because that requires you to be able to actually make a reasonable point or to not repeat the same shit all of your neanderthal friends would.

            You can sit there and spew all of the idiotic talking points you want I don’t care. At least I am not the kind of fucking idiot that automatically assumes someone is a liberal for criticizing conservatives on a Libertarian media outlet.

      • mike

        Oh, no shit Sherlock. She snuck a boy into her room to clearly have sex. Of course she’s scared because she knows she shouldn’t have been trying anything in her dads house. It’s entirely her fault

        • derpleton

          She didn’t do the shooting and this happens all the time all over and kids dont get shot. You would have to be retarded to blame the girl.

          • JudgeRoyBean25

            Its her fault for- A. Allowing the kid in..; B. Lying about it…..it doesn’t matter whether she was afraid of her father or not, her actions led to this kids death.

            • derpleton

              Yeah, one time a girlfriends father tossed me a shotgun shell and said if you hurt my daughter the next one is coming alot faster. The only person he was fooling was himself, It was a miracle I didn’t roll my eyes.

              The father’s actions led to the kids death and just because you want to play macho man and would have done the same doesn’t change anything.

            • svartalf

              I’d have said they’d be moving a lot faster if I had to ever give him another…

              • Casey McGuire

                Or…The next one I give you won’t have the casing on it. Or… ” ” ” will feel a lot hotter.

            • Georgia Houts

              Well, under those same rules, it is his fault for being in someones house he wasnt supposed to be in and hiding under the bed. He knew he wasnt supposed to be there or he would have never been under the bed. For the lying… she was scared.

              • Ryan Michael Miller

                What boy isn’t going to go in a girl’s bedroom at night after, she says, come on, I’ll sneak you in…? It’s all her fault, she broke her dad’s rules and lied so she wouldn’t get in trouble. I bet the boyfriend’s look on his face after the daughter said, she didn’t know him was a terrifying one. She wanted to be a rebel and lied about it. If she would’ve said, yea, this is such n such and I’m sorry, Dad,, the boy wouldn’t have got shot, period.

                • Faniel

                  Wow, your pretty good at mind reading despite never meeting the father

                  • Ryan Michael Miller

                    All anyone has is judgement of the father. But there is no evidence pointing to murder or manslaughter, period. The investigation, will be a short one.

                • Mark Stuber

                  re: “If she would’ve said, yea, this is such n such and I’m sorry, Dad,, the boy wouldn’t have got shot, period.”

                  I’m not sure about that. The dad did seem a little trigger happy and the “boy was reaching for something” defense sounds like CYA to me.

                  • Ryan Michael Miller

                    How can you not believe the father, what piece of evidence was there, to not believe him?

                    • Mark Stuber

                      His lame excuse, “He was reaching for something.”

                • Gena Surratt

                  What kid isn’t going to rebel against their parents at one point? Things probably escalated so quickly that no one knows what she was thinking.

              • Christopher Michael Moore

                Yes the boy is to blame as well, but the fact that he’s dead keeps him from facing any justice system.

                • Mark Stuber

                  Don’t tell me you never heard of a teenage girl sneaking a teenage boy in. That is such a cliche that is was used as a plot device in a comedic Super Bowl commercial. You just condmened a lot of typical American teenage boys to death.

                  • Christopher Michael Moore

                    How did I condemn so many boys to death? I was just pointing out that since he was no longer with us, that no punishment for his night-time escapade is possible. I didn’t say how severe his actions were or how severe his punishment would be. You are reading into it more than was written.

              • Faniel

                unfortunately, you don’t REALLY know if the boy was unaware he wasn’t allowed in the house. if the girl is lying to her father, whose to say she didn’t lie to the boy and say her father wasn’t home? Or maybe that her father was lax on rules? from what we have seen this girl has complete and utter careless disregard and has gone to great lengths just to get some a**

              • Mark Stuber

                So, the boy deserved to die for trying to get laid? Please. Don’t tell me you never heard of the scenario where a teenage girl sneaks a teenage boy into her house. That scenario is so cliche it is used as a plot device in several sit coms. Heck, even a Super Bowl Commerical used it as a plot device. You’re condemning a lot of teenage boys to death.

            • Ryan Michael Miller

              Ok, Mr. Meme.

            • Stryker

              Thanks a great idea. I have 3 daughters and I’ll use that one.

              • Mark Stuber

                It’s so cliche that it probably has lost its effect.

          • Georgia Houts

            As far as the dad knew, some stranger was in his house under his daughters bed. I wonder… did the boy really “go for something”? I dont know, but that part will matter in the investigation and will help determine when the DA decides what to charge the father or daughter with, if anything.

            • Gena Surratt

              Don’t you think the boy tried to tell the father he knew and was invited there by his daughter? I would have if I had a gun pulled on me.

              • Mark Stuber

                Probably. Young people don’t know when it is pointless to quit trying to explain,.

          • Ryan Michael Miller

            You have to be retarded in thinking, it’s not the girl’s fault.

            • Mark Stuber

              Who aimed the gun and pulled the trigger?

          • Christopher Michael Moore

            It’s called proxy violence. Person A hires Person B to kill Person C, murder by proxy. In this case, it is manslaughter by proxy. She needs to face a jury of her peers.

            • Mark Stuber

              She never hired, asked, or instructed her dad to kill that boy. It’s not proxy.

              • Christopher Michael Moore

                Hence, proxy manslaughter, instead of proxy murder.

                • Mark Stuber

                  Ok, she didn’t accidently ask, demand, or hire her dad to aim the gun and pull the trigger. How does one comment “man slaughter by proxy”?

          • Juanita EastCoast Morales-Saja

            If I snuck a boy into my parents’ house and lied about knowing him while my father is standing before us with a gun, that would be my fault. NO way around it. The father reacted because the daughter stated she didn’t know him. Her actions caused a reaction that left a young man dead.

            • Mark Stuber

              No. That’s not why the father killed the boy even according to the father. He did not say, “I killed the boy because he was a stranger.” He said he killed the boy because he “reached for something.”

              It the dad admitted he killed the boy for merely being an intruder, he’d be in jail right now or would have had to post an extremly high bond.

        • Mark Stuber

          Funny, you ridicule me for stating the obvious and then you go on to repeat
          what I just stated. Not only did you state the obvious but you
          were making a statement which was redundant to the post you were
          responding to. A clear example of hypocrisy.

          • fliteking

            Stuber breaks into a dance skit . . . the “I’m Always Right Even If It’s a Hell of a Stretch” shuffle. “

      • ScarletPimpernil

        Another observation: If people were not afraid of accountability, our laws would have no force.

        Before government, there was the family, the tribe and so forth. The birth of government like the state of ______ did not wipe out everything that was before. If only government could have laws, we’d have total chaos.

        Kids survive, barely, because they fear their parents ability to impose judgement.

        Sadly, this mirrors the result of family courts, where, every day, guys are kicked out their homes and their children’s lives based on strategic accusations of abuse and violence.

      • fliteking

        Stuber is phoning it in.

      • Georgie

        if she was scared of her dad she never ever would have had a boy in her room!!!!

    • Cadlax

      Are you actually trying to put the blame on the girl? You’ve got to be kidding me..

      • Frank Castle

        NOPE!!! 100% HER FAULT

        • Cadlax

          O, she pulled the trigger? Good to know.

          • patrickw

            her lies are what caused any situation to escalate….

            She lies says she doesn’t know him, hey he is a would be rapist criminal scumbag…

            If she said yes I know him I invited him in…. then dad is pissed, the boys parents get a call at 2AM telling them to get their asses over there now to pick up their son, daughter gets grounded till she is 18….

            I don’t know about you, but I see the daughter lying about knowing him as the SOLE factor that resulted in the boys death….

            • Cadlax

              You don’t think there was any way this could have been prevented. Honestly, 100%, you think there was no other option but ending the kids life?

              I feel like I’m in the twilight zone where apparently there is 0 value attached to human life.

              • KevinJ

                I think there’s a lot of discussions being kicked around here… some based on legality and some based on morality… which can be related, but are hardly the same thing. The boy’s death is a tragedy, IMHO. But the father is not solely to blame, and I don’t think he acted illegally. The father, the daughter, and the boy were all culpable in their actions. All of them could have acted differently and the tragedy could have been avoided.

                • Cadlax

                  And I’m not saying the daughter shouldn’t be to blame either, but the father is completely to blame for his death. Of course everything else led up to it but the father made the final decision to end his life. End of story.

                  • Kelly Carden

                    Based on what tho? And legally motive is a huge part of any case. If he based it on someone he believed to be a threat to his family then he acted appropriately. He will be tried for wrongful death, but I don’t see how anyone can expect him to be tried with anything else. He had no motive for murder. Unless you have a time machine that wold allow you to see exactly what happened, or just magically know the truth then you have to go based on facts given to us in the article. But I feel like you would have to assume that the man acted with integrity. You may very well have value attached to human life, but if you don’t believe that we as humans would act first with integrity then you are just as guilty as anyone else with the down fall in human morality.

              • Rebecca Robinson

                my thoughts exactly. Father didn’t have to shoot to kill, did he honestly believe his daughter didn’t know the kid? My dad would have shot me in the foot for lying to his face like that. Was he really that dumb?
                The boy didn’t sound too bright either, if the kid really did argue and grab ‘something’ why on earth was he arguing with the father in the man’s house? Those kids sound like the spoiled disrespectful brats i see all over now.

                The girl could have tried the helping with homework idea before the OMG LIKE I DONT KNOW HOW HE GOT IN MY PANTIES excuse.

    • fliteking

      She’ll be on Oprah and soon the boy and her father will be forgotten . . . she will be the center of attention .

    • Mark Stuber

      I don’t believe the dad. There was no weapons around except the one that he had in his hand. Therefore, what was the kid reaching for? Why would the kid reach for anything in a sudden way.

    • Young Mecca

      She’s not nasty for fucking that’s normal.