Ding-Dong-Ditch Gone Wrong

Sisyphus : Again…THIS-IS-NOT-TRUE! Why do you keep twisting what is clearly written? The shooter, the parents and the child are all responsible for what happened. That is not "shifting blame." Had the parents done their job, a 10 year old would not be running the streets after 11:00 pm. The child made several bad choices. The property owner was in control of the trigger.

I hope the family sues the homeowner's *** for everything he's worth.

With that said, I can remember the exact moment my friends and I decided to stop playing that game. Too many homeowners were reaponding with guns and we vowed to never play that game again. We were probably around 10 ourselves, SMH.

I know kids are big nowadays, but there's no way you can mistake a young child for an adult; and you cannot shoot perps who are running away down the damn street.

elguapo :
He did. Long enough to die at the hospital.

PatrickStar :
Roger that.

donnatella : And rightfully frightened as they get older and more insecure with some of the people. Someone banging on your door after 11 at night could be a home invasion, not a halfwitted "practical joke". In the middle of the night and without a moon or lights, it's hard to guess sizes of other people be they 11 or 21...
My sympathies go out to both families. Neither will ever be the same.

ProblemAgain :
Fear is natural...even expected. But how you respond... that's where the truth reveals itself. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, an accident. But if it mirrors that other incident, no gun then just a car. Well then we're no longer talking about mistakes, are we? We're talking about murder.

donnatella LittleTexas :
I think the Castle Doctrine may apply. The rules are different during the nighttime hours versus daytime. I don't know the whole story, did the homeowner shoot thru the door or did he take aim and knowingly shoot the boy in the back? And what is a 10 yr. Old boy doing out at 11:00 pm banging on peoples door?

this is a sad tragic story, however i understand both sides of the coin. One one had the home owner felt threatened and descided to shoot. On the other hand a child *almost/did loose their life over this awful prank.

Was the use of deadly force reasonable?Fredflinstone :

Govchance :
The owner left his house and property, chased the boys down the street, and fatally shot one kid in the back.

Sisyphus :
The point is quickly becoming irrelevant, in this case at least. The police no longer believe it was self-defense, and the shooter's back in custody. Charges are almost certainly imminent.