Author Topic: NY man shoots teen threatening his family (Read 6263 times)

dukkillr · « **Reply #90 on:** January 23, 2008, 11:11:53 AM »

Mixing civil liability and criminal liability is not a logical line of thought. Even jury verdicts are reached in a different process. Not to mention different standards, burdens, and laws apply.

Although you're right about taking responsibility for your actions. Everyone should understand that taking a human life is a high stakes decision and should not be made hastily. To me, killing someone unarmed is usually going to be unacceptable. Not always, but often. Leaving the house to escalate the conflict with unarmed youths? Seems reckless to me.

I've never met the 12 people on the jury, and I won't judge them based on the state they live in, just as my own beliefs should not be assumed based on living in Kansas. Until someone has shown me evidence to the contrary, I'll respect them for their service and abide by their judgment. I have selected juries and tried cases. I have studied jury statistics and interviewed individual jurors after trial. I can assure you that if you believe everyone in the pool will be liberal because you're in a liberal state, (or vise-versa) you are ignorant. Period. Every jury is different. Every deliberation is different. And only someone in their shoes, that saw their evidence, and heard their arguments, and listened to their deliberations can accurately assess how they ended up at their decision.

Brett · « **Reply #91 on:** January 23, 2008, 05:25:09 PM »

Quote from: rockbilly on January 23, 2008, 10:54:24 AM

Evidently some have never heard of responsibility.............

White took full responsibility for his actions when he exited the house to confront the mob. Therefore, he, and he alone is responsible for the death. To think otherwise could lead to a case against the kid that made the coffee at McDonald's, did he not contribute to the lady being burned by the hot coffee by making it? And while we are at it we might as well go after the deliveryman that delivered the coffee, and perhaps the salesman, etc, etc.

My point, assuming the responsibility for ones actions is part of the responsibility of having and using a firearm, White is responsible for what happened and should be dealt with accordingly.

I don't believe it's that far fetched. Have you ever heard this scenario before? Two thugs hold up a gas station. One is armed one is not. The one with the gun shoots and kills the clerk. The second thug is tried as an accessory to murder simply for the fact that he was a participant in the robbery attempt. Now back to the Long Island case. Were the other youngsters not participants in the event? They could have chosen not to go to Mr. Whites house with their buddy that night. They could have tried to talk their buddy into not going to Mr. Whites instead of egging him on. They could have told their buddy "let's split" when Mr. White confronted them with the gun.

deltecs · « **Reply #92 on:** January 23, 2008, 05:53:21 PM »

Quote from: rockbilly on January 23, 2008, 10:54:24 AM

Evidently some have never heard of responsibility.............

White took full responsibility for his actions when he exited the house to confront the mob. Therefore, he, and he alone is responsible for the death. To think otherwise could lead to a case against the kid that made the coffee at McDonald's, did he not contribute to the lady being burned by the hot coffee by making it? And while we are at it we might as well go after the deliveryman that delivered the coffee, and perhaps the salesman, etc, etc.

My point, assuming the responsibility for ones actions is part of the responsibility of having and using a firearm, White is responsible for what happened and should be dealt with accordingly.

I've read this post with great interest along with what facts I can find online. Yes, he should have stayed in his house and called the police. But I totally disagree that the victims death is solely attributed to White. The example quoted above is not of a victim in violation of a law, while in this case it is. Is a man driving too fast for road conditions solely responsible for the death of a person he hit that was jaywalking? The victim along with some friends were clearly disturbing the peace, trespassing, and inciting hate crime. I don't think that qualifies as being lily white in this instance, so did himself cause bodily risk by placing himself in harms way by breaking misdemeanor laws. White was guilty of the death because he too did not exercise prudent judgment, but so did the victim. I bet the other boys or young men that were there will not now attempt to intimidate their neighbors in the future. I think this is a good lesson for all of us. Before using deadly force, determine jeopardy or alternate actions available, if possible.

ironglow · « **Reply #93 on:** January 24, 2008, 01:58:24 AM »

Brett;
From what little we know about the case, it sure appears that the teenagers that came to harass Mr White and his family are indeed culpable! They had no good reason to bother him at all. As he should have stayed in the house and called the police first, they should not have went to his house over a stupid E-mail, real or imagined. They should have used the law in this case..same mistake as OJ Simpson recently made. There are ways of pursueing wrongdoers ! ASlthough I sympathise with the dead teen's parents, I don't agree that he was "vindicated" ..or guiltless. He should not have showed up at Mr White's house and "getting in the face" of an armed person who is already distraught, is not very wise.
A tragedy on all sides that could have been averted, had as GB suggested, "cooler heads prevailed"..

I believe Dukkiller gave us a clarifying picture..one that many of us are not fully aware of !

My grandparents raised an orphan in 1905-1920 period. John (his name), dreamed of being a judge, and his dream came true to the point where he was eventually a NY State Supreme court judge. My Dad often said that one of John's quotes was, " Nine tenths of the law is common sense!"

That may have been very true in the early twentieth century...but recently, having seen the process among friends and relations that I know divorce, child custody, youthful mischief etc., I am convinced that there are many times when "common sense" is ignored !
It may be due to creeping liberalism or whatever, but common sense no longer cuts it in most cases !

One thing that laymen are often mistaken about:

LEGAL right & wrong ..very often have very little to do with MORAL right & wrong..

Morals..as typified with "natural law" or Biblical teachings..have no relationship to legal "ethics"...

When I hear politicians (who are often lawyers) speak about something being " ethical " .. I must remind myself that this often has nothing to do with
the concepts many of us consider as as honorable and right !

Chilachuck · « **Reply #94 on:** January 24, 2008, 05:37:38 AM »

TM7, you go somewhere as a group to intending to "straighten someone out", you are pretty much accepting that you intend to stomp the snot out of him.

You go planning on violence, you get stuck with the violence that happens.

(McD got slapped down for their behavior, not for the coffee.)

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #95 on:** January 24, 2008, 07:10:55 AM »

we live in the land of the offended where no one is responsible for what they do !

Brett · « **Reply #96 on:** January 24, 2008, 03:37:00 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on January 24, 2008, 02:16:22 AM

The three boys are only culpable in the crimes they committed. They had no intention for one of them getting shot. They had no foreknowledge of this happening, or if White had a gun or his state of mind. When the gun was pulled out they had no part in it's use, unless they cause an accidental discharge. Extrapolating law to be but/for inclusive of just about everything is a dangerous prerogative, and hopefully won't catch on.

..TM7

No they were there to give someone an A$$ kicking not to get shot.
So When Mr White read his horror scope that morning it said "You will shoot a white boy today."
Would Mr White have pulled out a gun if they were not standing in his front yard threatening to beat down his boy?

deltecs · « **Reply #97 on:** January 24, 2008, 06:52:12 PM »

The whole basis of CCW is not knowing who will have a weapon in the commission of a crime. It is definite that these young men were in the commission of misdemeanor crimes and possibly felony crime on hate violence using threats. None of them expected to be shot or should have been under the circumstances. But as to their complete non culpability in this instance is ludicrous to believe. Just because he was found guilty does not absolve these young men from criminal actions. Remember Bernard Getts, the man who shot 3 teens who were threatening his life with a knife in NY subway? Mr Getts was unlawfully using a firearm. The hoodlums were dead. Did they deserve to die for the mere threat of physical force? Sounds awful familiar to the White case except Mr. White had an avenue of escape by not placing himself in jeopardy had he stayed in his house. Most positively these young men contributed to this escalation and death by putting themselves in jeopardy too.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #98 on:** January 25, 2008, 01:57:14 AM »

the jury that returned a guilty verdict has opened the door to more of this !

Chilachuck · « **Reply #99 on:** January 25, 2008, 05:15:04 AM »

They were there to commit a crime of violence against someone. It being a misdemeanor or felony would depend on how it turned out, but several on one? That's usually justification for lethal force (ignoring the question of if the victims should have just called the cops and stayed inside).

No, they did not go there planning on one of them getting shot. Had they done so, would it have been ok to shoot one of them?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #100 on:** January 25, 2008, 05:34:16 AM »

and to add , why is it illegal to go out side at your own home when someone else is breaking the law ?
and why is it ok for a cop to shoot but not a home owner ?
the kids were looking for a fight and they got one ! saying they did not intend to get killed is like saying when i drive i don't either ! but if i do stupid things while driving i might just get killed ! AND IT WOULD BE MY FAULT !
and if the jury wanted to stop this BS they should have found him not guilty !

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #101 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:11:22 AM »

So the boys were guilty of trespassing and running off their mouths as far as I can see. The guy was rightfully concerned for the safety of his son and his family and started to do what anybody in his position should do in that situation by arming himself. At that point he should have called 911 when the gang showed up, and prepared to defend his family if the problem escalated before the cops arrive.

He should not have left the house to confront the gang. He put himself at risk by doing so and put himself even more at risk when he displayed the gun and got so close to the boys. By displaying the gun he kicked the confrontation up to a deadly level. He should have stayed inside!

The gun was illegal! Like it or not, when you use an illegal gun for defense you will have to pay the consequences, and the illegality of the gun will be used against you.

The kids were partially responsible for their friends death since they were committing a misdemeanor that was possibly escalating into a felony, but it will never go farther than that.

Was race an issue here? From the racial epithets that the paper mentions, it probably was. But the race card was played, and it didn't change the outcome. I wonder what would have happened if the races were the opposite?

By the way, I am from upstate New York and have to put up with our laws every day.

deltecs · « **Reply #102 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:04:43 PM »

My point is that we are all subject to consequences for illogical or criminal actions by taking unnecessary risks, regardless of legalities. Both escalated this situation, both did not act prudently on either party, and the result is both sides lost by putting themselves in positions of greater risks than good judgement dictated. Both are at fault for their own actions regardless of any legal outcome on either party.

Chilachuck · « **Reply #103 on:** January 25, 2008, 04:23:11 PM »

Having an illegal gun is "Malum prohibitum", Bad because it is prohibited.

Murder is "Malum in se", Bad in it's self.

So, for a valid self defense act (prevention of something malum in se, murder) the use of an illegal firearm, while malum prohibitum, should not be an issue. And a lawyer that does not make that argument, should be kicked out.

deltecs · « **Reply #104 on:** January 25, 2008, 04:46:52 PM »

The gun is illegal only because this state and city chose to ignore Constitutional rights to firearms ownership and has not been challenged as to its legality. That may change when the US Supreme Court makes its decision in DC v Heller. If the Supreme Court determines the 2nd Amendment to be an individual Constitutional right not to be infringed by city or state law, then was Whites possession of firearms illegal? Since the law prohibiting his possession is invalid, so is the City and States position with regard to prosecution for its violation. The firearm itself was not illegal, it was Whites possession of a firearm in violation of City ordinance. I will not debate Whites discharge of the weapon, only its legality as to firearms possession.

Chilachuck · « **Reply #105 on:** January 27, 2008, 06:30:49 AM »

Yeah, I said it wrong. "Illegal possession". An "illegal gun" could include machine guns, and they are a bit harder to explain as self defense.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #106 on:** January 28, 2008, 02:04:11 AM »

trespass is one thing but trespass with intent to do bodily harm is different . being a loud mouth is also quite different than threatening to do bodily harm or murder .
these thugs were met with a stronger force and did not have the intelligence to retreat , they got what they deserved !
and yes i am aware of the law , not all laws are good laws !

Dee · « **Reply #107 on:** January 28, 2008, 02:13:11 AM »

To "threaten" with physical harm, or death in Texas, is called TERRORISTIC THREAT. It is a legal charge, and punishable, and gives the VICTIM the right to defend themselves. It's amazing the difference that a few hundred miles and another state can make.
WHO, has a "GUAGE", on how much of a beating one can with stand, before one DIES? AND, whom has the expertise, to know when to stop beating?
Whom also has the right to go to some one's HOUSE, and administer this beating, when they are not welcome. Manners have been replaced with audacity, and the "consequences" of said audacity, are place in the WRONG lap.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #108 on:** January 28, 2008, 02:18:00 AM »

how do ignorant laws like this get made ?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #109 on:** January 28, 2008, 02:18:41 AM »

NY law NOT TEXAS law !

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #110 on:** January 28, 2008, 03:07:55 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on January 28, 2008, 02:18:00 AM

how do ignorant laws like this get made ?

They get made by the downstate Liberal Democrats (New York City and thereabouts) who control the government, and enforced by Liberal judges. They feel that somehow they, and they alone, have been divinely granted supreme wisdom to know what the rest of us need since they consider us too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. Of course they live in "safe" areas and don't have to put up with the levels of crime that many of their victims (Oops, I meant constituents) do.

m1aman · « **Reply #111 on:** January 29, 2008, 06:57:59 AM »

who cares what texas law is? man you are really reaching to rationalize murder

many of your comments border on hysterical. and i don't mean funny!

ironglow · « **Reply #112 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:18:39 AM »

MiAman;

Yup ! I have been rather wondering if Shootall's real name were not ..John Wesley Hardin !...LOL

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #113 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:16:50 AM »

a self defense killing is still murder !
the reason for the Texas clarification was to let Dee know i was not picking on Texas law .
what i find odd is everyone justification for allowing a loud mouth trespasser spouting off about killing a homeowner and family not being responsible for their actions .

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #114 on:** January 29, 2008, 03:56:37 PM »

You have a right to wave your arms around in a threatening manner as much as you like, but if I hit you first, I am the aggressor. The same principle applies here , mouthing off and threatening does not justify deadly force! If the deceased had a gun and were threatening with it, that would have been different, but it was not the case.

Chilachuck · « **Reply #115 on:** January 29, 2008, 04:52:11 PM »

Shootall,

"Homicide" is human killing human. "Murder" is an illegal homicide.

"Self defense" is one sort of justified homicide, it is not murder.

deltecs · « **Reply #116 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:31:20 PM »

Quote from: woodchukhntr on January 29, 2008, 03:56:37 PM

You have a right to wave your arms around in a threatening manner as much as you like, but if I hit you first, I am the aggressor. The same principle applies here , mouthing off and threatening does not justify deadly force! If the deceased had a gun and were threatening with it, that would have been different, but it was not the case.

I do not know how anyone could come to the conclusion either legally or morally, that one can wave their arms in a threatening manner as much as you like is not an aggressive action and so becomes an aggressor. It is considered assault. The battery portion of this charge is physical contact of assault. If you scream and wave your arms in a threatening manner in a theater for instance, you can be cited for inciting a riot and disturbing the peace. If you wave your arms in a threatening manner with the support of several others similarly acting and yelling racial slurs, you and those with you can be cited for inciting a riot and hate crime discrimination. You wave your arms in a threatening manner in your own home and your children can be taken for their protection and you can be cited for domestic violence. Violence is the key word here. The actions of both parties were violent with rage. That does not mean to say homicide or manslaughter was justifiable. It just means don't get confused that just because there was no contact before the gun fired, the victims were acting in a manner within their rights.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #117 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:01:09 AM »

add to that the 3 on one and a case can be made that the over whelming force of 3 left the 1 the use of deadly force as his only option to survive unhurt .

Dee · « **Reply #118 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:47:47 AM »

Quote from: m1aman on January 29, 2008, 06:57:59 AM

who cares what texas law is? man you are really reaching to rationalize murder many of your comments border on hysterical. and i don't mean funny!

Well I guess that puts us on equal terms, as I find the rationale (or lack of it) in most all your comments as rather, moronic. And I don't mean funny either. I mean moronic.

rockbilly · « **Reply #119 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:44:17 AM »

In my opinion anyone that believes White would not have been prosecuted in Texas is living in a fantasy land. Texas has proven to be very liberal in convicting those who uses a firearm to defend themselves, or their property. White showed as much aggression as the mob did by leaving the home to confront the group.

I can fully support anyone that uses deadly force to protect themselves or their property, but to step outside and confront a group of people when your life is really in no immediate danger is fool hardy and deserves prosecution. A jury of his peers heard the case, and decided he was guilty based on the evidence presented. Why is that so hard to understand? Having served on a Grand Jury here in the great state of Texas, I do not hesitate to say he would have been indicted here as well.