Trick or Treat: Man defends family, kills 12 year-old on Hallowe'en

[TW Scott]

You know, you're right. You never said,

Show me where I said people should shoot kids? Come on. Don;t throw up red herring and scarecrows.

Any idiot can see I was pointing out were a PTSDing Patrick might have seen this differently than we do. After all we are getting every after the fact. hell what would be your knee jerk reaction to seeind a robber with and assault rifle? Especially since the last time you were robbed and played along you were shot.


As for my desire to acquit him. I only wish to acquit him of murder. His intent was to defend from what he perceived to be a hostile and deadly force. If cops can be absolved of shooting people with fake guns then the public should have the same right. Now of course nail him for manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and the illegal gun charge, but murder is one step too far unless you are willing to charge every mistaken cop with the same crime.

 

[phoenix2634]

This did not happen on Federal property so Federal Law doesn't apply.

Texas law is way more lenient in certain circumstances, in particular in cases where someone "invades" your home. Basically if they are over the threshold, you can shoot to kill. Also if they are legitimately inside, like a salesman, and you tell them to leave and they refuse and are "threatening" you can shoot them. Also certain kinds of criminal trespass, i.e. they are trespassing in the commission of a crime like especially rustling / horse thieving. (Horse theiving was a capital crime in Texas after capital punishment was taken off the books for murder by the Supreme Court for the country. It never came to trial, but that would have been interesting. )

Now things may have changed since I lived there because a bunch of damn northern republicans moved into the state and started screwing things up, but that's how it was last I checked.

If you think he’s getting acquitted you should share what you are smoking. Illegal fire arm, ex con killed a trick or treater and shot up his family through a door. No he is going down and will be lucky if he gets death as people who hurt kids don't fair well in prison. That’s why they are already trying to float the insane plea.

A bit more Texas trivia. Texas is the only state allowed to maintain its own, independent standing army (i.e. above, beyond and independent of the nationa guard). Its part of the treaty which brought the Republic of Texas (1836-1846) into the union.

FYI: While Texas law is interesting it doesn't matter in this case. It happened in South Carolina.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

Show me where I said people should shoot kids? Come on. Don;t throw up red herring and scarecrows.

Oh, quit whining. You tried to make excuses for him. Repeatedly. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Here's one for you, Mr. Scott: How many burglars knock on the door and then wait for you to open it?

Given that the "bad guys" were waiting on the porch, the shooter had plenty of time to call the police. But, you know, you would rather just speculate in order to find some reason to excuse the guy for shooting a kid to death. For trick or treating. On Hallowe'en.

Hell, for all that we know the situation was probably eerily similiar to the events where patrick was shot. There are a lot of sick people who take their kids out on their crime sprees.

Seriously, speculate some more, Mr. Scott. Whatever, right? As long as someone gets to shoot the shit out of someone else.

Remember, sir, your position on firearms is not exactly a secret around here. You're one of those who is apparently quick to show off your firepower.

Would you say it's too oppressive and demanding to expect that in "defending" oneself, one ought to at least have some clue what is going on? Fuck, dude, this is one step shy of shooting someone for looking at you wrong. I mean, really, if they'd come knocking on his door in ghoulish masks on Easter, that would be something. God, what's next, a chorus of caroling carcasses come Christmas?

 

[swarm]

FYI: While Texas law is interesting it doesn't matter in this case. It happened in South Carolina.

The "houston chronicle" ref. threw me there.

Still, not fed property, no fed employees, no crossing state lines, not fed case.

Also I doubt things are that dif in SC when it come to ex cons (which means he forfeited his gun ownership rights) w/ illegal weapons gunning down kids through doors on holloween.

 

[Baron Max]

Given that the "bad guys" were waiting on the porch, the shooter had plenty of time to call the police.

Convicted criminals seldom think of the cops as good guys coming to the rescue. Besides, what's the average response time for cops coming to a 911 call? Now tell me how long it takes for robbery? If you did your investigation properly, any robbery would have been over long, long before the cops arrived.

Would you say it's too oppressive and demanding to expect that in "defending" oneself, one ought to at least have some clue what is going on?

But according to the OP, he did think he "had a clue" ...he said he thought someone was there to rob him like had happened before. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean that he didn't.

No, Tiassa, I'm not defending his actions, but you, on the other hand, seem intent on sending him straight to prison or the gas chamber without an investigation or a trial. If he truly thought that he was going to be robbed, he was probably scared ...scared people sometimes do scary things.

And just so you know, not everyone even knows when Halloween is! He might not have had a clue that it was Halloween.

At any rate, it sure wasn't first degree murder ...it wasn't premeditated. Second degree at the worst.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Reasonable fear?

Convicted criminals seldom think of the cops as good guys coming to the rescue. Besides, what's the average response time for cops coming to a 911 call? Now tell me how long it takes for robbery? If you did your investigation properly, any robbery would have been over long, long before the cops arrived.

Right. But that still begs the question: How many burglars ring the doorbell and then wait for you to open it?

But according to the OP, he did think he "had a clue" ...he said he thought someone was there to rob him like had happened before. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean that he didn't.

Are you suggesting he knowingly opened fire on boys aged nine and twelve?

No, Tiassa, I'm not defending his actions, but you, on the other hand, seem intent on sending him straight to prison or the gas chamber without an investigation or a trial. If he truly thought that he was going to be robbed, he was probably scared ...scared people sometimes do scary things.

No, Max, you're jumping to conclusions again. I'm fully aware that he gets a trial, and given my advocacy at this site for defendants and their lawyers against the police and prosecutors—a trend that you're well aware of, sir—you might consider it in a different context. For instance, I also said that this is one step shy of shooting someone for looking at you wrong. Perhaps you missed that part. Or perhaps the significance did not occur to you.

What do you think is a reasonable fear to justify shooting someone? (Someone I didn't know was at my door wearing a mask on Hallowe'en, and I didn't know what they were doing, or what they were going to do, so I was scared that they were going to do something so I shot the shit out of them without even asking what they wanted.)

Dude, you can shoot someone in this country for asking directions? You can shoot children for trick-or-treating? Come on, at some point, this whole, "I'm scared!" business means that a person doesn't need a gun, but rather some serious counseling.

This case falls purely within my previously-defined position on guns. I don't think it's too much to ask that someone know who they're shooting at and why they're shooting in the first place.

At what point does a woman get to shoot you for looking at her? ("I was raped before. I thought he was going to rape me!")

• • •​

Police said the suspect, Quentin Patrick, 22, opened fire with an AK-47 because he thought he was being robbed. The family went to the home because the porch light was on, usually a signal that trick-or-treaters are welcome.

Two of three siblings who went to the door with their father were wearing ghoulish masks. Their parents said the slain boy was determined to get candy first, so he was in front when the shots were fired.

"T.J. saved us that night," Grinnell said. "He took most of the shots."

When the shooting stopped, Grinnell said, the door swung open. Patrick stood there, gun in hand, and said, "Oh, no."

"I was holding my son while he was bleeding, and he was backing out of the yard," Grinnell recalled.

(Adcox)

The Associated Press reports Quentin Patrick has been denied bond, and the police chief will recommend to prosecutors that they pursue this event as a capital crime.
____________________

Notes:

Adcox, Seanna. "Dad: Slain SC trick-or-treater saved him, siblings". Associated Press. November 3, 2008. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRQwzyLHeXFy9MJwA44-IE38aUrAD947NFO00

 

[Baron Max]

Right. But that still begs the question: How many burglars ring the doorbell and then wait for you to open it?

I don't know, Tiassa, but it's not a bad ploy on Halloween. The guy would think that it was just a bunch of little kids and open the door -- BOOM!

Are you suggesting he knowingly opened fire on boys aged nine and twelve?

No, I said that he THOUGHT they were bad guys, not little kids.

What do you think is a reasonable fear to justify shooting someone?

Well, I would think that it would be ....reasonable fear. But it sure would be a less more than what YOU think is "reasonable fear".

...so I was scared that they were going to do something so I shot the shit out of them without even asking what they wanted.

Yeah, murderers always answer their victims when they ask what they want. It's like, what, a "murderer's code of ethics"?

At what point does a woman get to shoot you for looking at her? ("I was raped before. I thought he was going to rape me!")

There'd likely be a helluva lot less rapes in the world, wouldn't there? If all women carried a gun, and was trained to use it, rapists of the world would probably be a helluva lot more cautious about who they attacked.

Glad to see that you're back to make footnotes. There for a while, I began to actually think of you as almost normal ...even while knowing that you ain't.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Ding-dong. You're dead.

I don't know, Tiassa, but it's not a bad ploy on Halloween. The guy would think that it was just a bunch of little kids and open the door -- BOOM!

Well, one of the questions is whether he even looked to see, and therefore decide whether it was a bunch of little kids or evil midgets in disguise.

Freddie Grinnell, Jr., the injured father, explained, "We were just standing on the front porch for a second, and all hell broke loose. It happened so quickly."

No, I said that he THOUGHT they were bad guys, not little kids.

Well, thinking one has a clue doesn't necessarily make it true. One of the questions is whether he knew anything about who was outside his door. When his trial comes—presuming, of course, that he doesn't plead out—the jury will be paying attention to the parties' accounts of how much time passed between the doorbell and the first shot, and whether Patrick looked to see who was on his porch, or what the hell happened.

If, for instance, he thought they were bad guys, but didn't bother to check before opening fire ...? I mean, looking to see who was there would have given him at least a minimal clue, don't you think?

Well, I would think that it would be ....reasonable fear.

Okay, let's try to pin this one down a bit.

• Doorbell rings. Don't look to see who's there. Shoot first, ask questions later.
• Doorbell rings. Look out, see two kids in ghoulish masks, holding candy bags, standing with their father. Presume they are evil midgets, open fire.​

Reasonable?

But it sure would be a less more than what YOU think is "reasonable fear".

Um ... what? You know what? Never mind. I get it insofar as I can agree that we would have different standards of reasonability.

Yeah, murderers always answer their victims when they ask what they want. It's like, what, a "murderer's code of ethics"?

Just like they always ring the doorbell. On Hallowe'en.

There'd likely be a helluva lot less rapes in the world, wouldn't there? If all women carried a gun, and was trained to use it, rapists of the world would probably be a helluva lot more cautious about who they attacked.

And lots of people who weren't planning a rape would be dead for looking in the wrong direction at the wrong moment. Of course, diversity suggests that there are some people with whom that would be just fine.

Glad to see that you're back to make footnotes. There for a while, I began to actually think of you as almost normal ...even while knowing that you ain't.

Well, when all I'm doing is entertaining your bloated, inflamed ego with two-bit childish exchanges of bullshit, there's not much to cite.

Hey, I could try making my posts even shorter: I could skip actually quoting you. Since you are so frequently contextually challenged, it might turn out to make no practical difference.
____________________

Notes:

Adcox, Seanna. (See prior citation).

 

[sniffy]

Jesus americans come across as a bunch of paranoid freaks!

Does anyone else have a problem with:
1) Letting kids wander around at night wearing bizarre freaky costumes (let alone calling on complete strangers dressed like this)?
2) An obsession with firearms? Guns are for one thing and one thing only - killing. It should come as no surprise that guns kill in the hands of people.

 

[Baron Max]

Well, one of the questions is whether he even looked to see, and therefore decide whether it was a bunch of little kids or evil midgets in disguise.

Tiassa, I'm not trying to justify his actions ...what he did was wrong, plain and simple. But it wasn't first degree/premeditated murder. The man claimed that he was scared that it was someone out to get him/to kill him. He took what action he thought was necessary for him to stay alive. Was it wrong? Sure, but that didn't stop him from doing it. So you can keep condemning him for it for as long as you want, but it doens't change anything.

Well, thinking one has a clue doesn't necessarily make it true. One of the questions is whether he knew anything about who was outside his door.

But that doesn't matter, Tiassa. He wasn't using YOUR brain to analyze the situation, he was using his own! He was scared, he thought it was the bad guys, so he shot the shit outta' the place. Was he wrong? Sure, but that don't bring back the kid, and it don't change nothin'.

I mean, looking to see who was there would have given him at least a minimal clue, don't you think?

Don't matter. It's what HE thought, Tiassa, not what YOU think. He used what he thought was true to make his decisions ...he didn't try to call you to assist him in deciding what to do. Was he wrong? Sure, but that don't change anything ...and it don't bring back the kid.

Okay, let's try to pin this one down a bit.

• Doorbell rings. Don't look to see who's there. Shoot first, ask questions later.
• Doorbell rings. Look out, see two kids in ghoulish masks, holding candy bags, standing with their father. Presume they are evil midgets, open fire.​

Reasonable?

Yes, that's somewhat reasonable. But that's not what he did, Tiassa. Like you and me, he's was free to make his own decisions, and he did so. Was he right? No, but that don't bring back the little kid.

You make your decisions based on your own evaluation of the sitaution you're facing. I do the same. That guy did the same ...and he fucked up his decision and is now going to prison for it.

Well, when all I'm doing is entertaining your bloated, inflamed ego with two-bit childish exchanges of bullshit, there's not much to cite.

Are you permitted to belittle members of the forums like that, Tiassa? Oh, wait, you're a moderator ...you can do anything, but you force others to tow the line or they get banned, right? How does that power feel, Tiassa? Is it going to your head?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Jesus americans come across as a bunch of paranoid freaks!

Then perhaps you shouldn't associate with them.

2) An obsession with firearms? Guns are for one thing and one thing only - killing.

No, they're also for target practice for fun and enjoyment. They're also marvels of machining and can be enjoyed just for the beauty of a fine weapon.

It should come as no surprise that guns kill in the hands of people.

Guns don't kill anyone. Only humans kill people. And they've been doing just that for hundreds of thousands of years ...mostly without guns available!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Jesus americans come across as a bunch of paranoid freaks!

Does anyone else have a problem with:
1) Letting kids wander around at night wearing bizarre freaky costumes (let alone calling on complete strangers dressed like this)?
2) An obsession with firearms? Guns are for one thing and one thing only - killing. It should come as no surprise that guns kill in the hands of people.

While the costumes for guys are bizarre and freaky, the ones for girls range from cute to what may politely be called trampy.

 

[Baron Max]

While the costumes for guys are bizarre and freaky, the ones for girls range from cute to what may politely be called trampy.

Geez, SAM, talk about making generalizations!!

SAM, I know it's hard for you, but try, try really hard to remember that all Americans are not all alike ....in exactly the same way as you see Muslims or Indians.

Now me, that's different. When I got to know you here on the site, I immediately began to hate you. And as time went on, I've now come to hate all Indians, all Muslims, all Palestinians, all Iraqis, all Afghanis, ...., well, in short, I've come to hate everyone and everything on Earth.

But that's okay for me! You, however, shouldn't do that ...'cause most people think that it ani't nice.

Baron Max

 

[John99]

Originally Posted by sniffy
Jesus americans come across as a bunch of paranoid freaks!

Does anyone else have a problem with:
1) Letting kids wander around at night wearing bizarre freaky costumes (let alone calling on complete strangers dressed like this)?
2) An obsession with firearms? Guns are for one thing and one thing only - killing. It should come as no surprise that guns kill in the hands of people.

It is a very populous nation and we dont know the circumstances. Billions of people were out in costumes or whatever and one person goes crazy and kills someone and you say:

Jesus americans come across as a bunch of paranoid freaks!

That is like me taking one person on this board who happened to be living in U.K and deciding that this one person represents all British people. It is not really a smart thing to do.

For all we no the guy could have been on drugs or just insane.

 

[John99]

SAM, I know it's hard for you, but try, try really hard to remember that all Americans are not all alike ....in exactly the same way as you see Muslims or Indians.

Delusion is often a very comforting.

 

[sniffy]

It is a very populous nation and we dont know the circumstances. Billions of people were out in costumes or whatever and one person goes crazy and kills someone and you say:



That is like me taking one person on this board who happened to be living in U.K and deciding that this one person represents all British people. It is not really a smart thing to do.

For all we no the guy could have been on drugs or just insane.

FYI I DO represent all british people...

I'm talking about the absolute US obsession with firearms. Soz but it's freaky. And it ain't just one person is it? Quite a few 'disgruntled' citizens have gone on killing rampages in the states. If the guns weren't so available there would be less chance of them doing so. Sorry but I think it is madness! I don't doubt however that firearms are quiet mesmerising. The power and all that.

 

[sniffy]

Then perhaps you shouldn't associate with them.



No, they're also for target practice for fun and enjoyment. They're also marvels of machining and can be enjoyed just for the beauty of a fine weapon.



Guns don't kill anyone. Only humans kill people. And they've been doing just that for hundreds of thousands of years ...mostly without guns available!

Baron Max

Yeah yeah yeah max I know that broken record of yours just keeps on spinning. However you will note that guns were invented by humans for the purpose of killing other humans more effectively and in greater numbers than say wielding a large stick might.

I don't mind mixing with americans at all just at a safe distance from y'all

 

[Baron Max]

I'm talking about the absolute US obsession with firearms. Soz but it's freaky.

Well, try to think of it this way; our Constitution gives us certain rights, certain freedoms, that we hold dear. Now, along comes a bunch of mamby-pamby liberals wanting to take away one of those rights, one of those freedoms. Okay ....if we let them take that one away, what's to stop them from taking more away whenever they want to? I mean, we won't have guns to protect ourselves from those who would keep on taking freedoms, more and more, until we don't have any left. Our guns are our protection from the government taking over our lives and doing anything that they want.

And it ain't just one person is it? Quite a few 'disgruntled' citizens have gone on killing rampages in the states.

Well, quite a few MORE citizens have gone on "killing rampages" in their cars than ever have been killed by guns. So, see? If we're talking about numbers of dead people, then we should start with something that causes far greater deaths than guns.

Ahh, but then that might take away YOUR freedoms, right? And you wouldn't like that, right? Hmm? As long as you take away someone else's freedoms, that's okay, ....but don't take away any of mine! Right?

Baron Max

 

[sniffy]

I don't want the freedom to own a gun thanks very much and i don't want somebody else to have the freedom to shoot me with theirs. God does that make me reasonable? Or liberal?

And you know when you compare gun death to car death you're talking a load of shiite.

 

[Baron Max]

I don't want the freedom to own a gun thanks very much and i don't want somebody else to have the freedom to shoot me with theirs. God does that make me reasonable? Or liberal?

It makes you a mamby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberal ....because you want to take away the rights of others just because YOU don't like something.

And you know when you compare gun death to car death you're talking a load of shiite.

It just proves that you have some other agenda besides saving lives. And just so you know, that also makes you a mamby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberal.

Baron Max