Ding-Dong-Ditch Gone Wrong
Ding-Dong-Ditch Gone Wrong
Joined:
X days ago
# Posts:
X,XXX
Contributor Points:
X
Replies:
Not really - toilet papering is more of a prank than an act of terror. At 10 years old, it's definitely mischief and poor judgment (especially that late at night), but it shouldn't be something that causes genuine terror. That said, times have changed, and some homeowners may feel more on edge than they used to, especially in higher-crime areas. The best solution is for kids to be home at that hour and for adults to respond with calm, not fear.
It' sad that a child was injured. But seriously, "kid was playing a game" and "individual stepped out of a house and shot him"? Media hype at its most atrocious. The way it's written would have the reader believe the home occupant put candy on the front porch and was hiding behind a curtain waiting for a stray child. All the assumptions, what-ifs, and biased media leanings do not a news story make. What are the specifics? Did the child simply ring a doorbell or kick the **** out of the door? Was this a one-time deal or had it been ongoing? Do the child and/or the child's parents know the resident? Has there been neighborhood friction? At 10 years of age, some kids appear to be fully grown adults. Was the kid wearing concealment clothing like a hoody or mask? Did the kid say anything to the individual when the door opened? What's the homeowner's history? Age? Firearm training? Had they previous been victimized? Is there a history of home invasions in the neighborhood? What was the lighting environment. Could the individual that opened the door have been afraid for his life? Are there any racial/cultural overtones? So, to summarize: Kid rang doorbell or banged on door. Occupant opened door to investigate. Kid got shot. (Nowhere does it say "in the back" by the way). The kid's in the hospital. The shooter is apparently in custody - but "not charged". Anything more is hearsay and imagination.
peppermintstick, RaggedyAnn and PhotophanaticIV + 2 more reacted No, shooting a 10-year-old for ringing a doorbell is not a reasonable response.
Even if the child was out too late and making poor choices, that doesn't justify using deadly force. Most folks in the discussion agree the parents should have been more responsible, but nearly everyone also recognizes that ringing a doorbell is not a life-threatening act. A better response would have been calling the police or using security cameras, not pulling the trigger.
Is your response greatly influenced by the original poster's dubbing the prank as terrorist?
Not really - my response isn't based on the label the OP used. Words like "terrorist" or "terrorizing" definitely add drama and can influence how people react, but I try to look at the actions themselves and the consequences described in the thread. A prank like ding-dong-ditch can be annoying or even alarming at night, but it's nowhere near the same as actual terrorism. So my take is guided more by the facts of the situation than by the OP's choice of words.
bluebot : Is your response greatly influenced by the original poster's dubbing the prank as terrorist?
Sisyphus : I am the original poster. Show me where I used that term, anywhere in this discussion. It's not there and claiming I said it is 100% false and untrue. I'm all for healthy debate and even disagreement, but I will not tolerate lies being told about what I have posted.
Read the last sentence of your original post where YOU wrote "no 10-year-old should be out terrorizing neighborhoods..."
- - - - - - - -
>> Sisyphus : I am the original poster. Show me where I used that term, anywhere in this discussion. It's not there and claiming I said it is 100% false and untrue. I'm all for healthy debate and even disagreement, but I will not tolerate lies being told about what I have posted.
Read the last sentence of your original post where YOU wrote "no 10-year-old should be out terrorizing neighborhoods..."
Views: 5,696
# Replies: 257

