Man kills stepdaughter, may have thought she was a burglar

[Judi Lynn]

CBS/AP / December 23, 2013, 4: 02 PM

Man kills stepdaughter, may have thought she was a burglar

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Police say a 14-year-old Colorado girl was killed by her stepfather after he fired a gunshot, apparently thinking she was a burglar.

According to CBS affiliate KKTV, the incident happened at around 6 a.m. Monday.

Colorado Springs police spokesman Larry Herbert said the girl's stepfather fired the weapon, but said it was unclear if he had in fact mistaken the girl for a burglar.
The station reports police got a call about a "burglary in progress"

The girl died after being taken to a hospital.

The stepfather hasn't been arrested and it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether charges should be filed. Colorado's so-called "Make My Day" law allows residents in many instances to forcefully defend themselves against home intruders.

More:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colo-teen-killed-by-stepfather-who-thought-she-was-a-burglar/

[Blanket Statements]

1. Tragic accident

[savalez]

2. Paranoid gun toters seem to cause a lot of accidents.

[Blanket Statements]

4. Your opinion

[kelliekat44]

150. Mine too. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

157. Mine also.

[Ed Suspicious]

176. Mine as well.

[catbyte]

186. So the gun fired itself? This wasn't an accident.

[raccoon]

174. +1000. nt

[Bjorn Against]

7. This was not an accident, he purposely aimed and pulled the trigger

He did not even know who he was shooting, but he intentionally pulled the trigger and shot the person anyways. He may have regretted his actions afterwards but it was no accident, he intentionally shot her and he needs to be held accountable.

[Blanket Statements]

8. Is that what you determined in your investigation, detective?

[savalez]

10. When did you do your investigation, detective?

[Blanket Statements]

12. I'm not the one claiming to know what happened

[Iggo]

161. Sure you are.

You said it was a tragic accident.

[Blanket Statements]

163. The story says he mistook her for a burglar

That would make it an accident

[catbyte]

187. That would make it a mistake. Not an accident.

[Duckhunter935]

11. I assume he is right

He pulled the trigger but failed to follow basic firearms safety.

[Blanket Statements]

13. Exactly

Doesn't make it criminal, though

[Marrah_G]

17. Should be

But the NRA keeps pumping out the money to keep any sort of regulations pertaining to guns off the books.

[Blanket Statements]

18. What regulation would have prevented this?

[Marrah_G]

24. I don't know, maybe requiring that you know what you are shooting at?

You know...so you don't shoot your own CHILD.

[savalez]

27. How about

the "make my day" statute not being applicable when they are wrong about who they shot? It seems to me that an "I know my rights" attitude can lead to a shoot first ask questions later situation.

[Blanket Statements]

29. It's being investigated

[Bjorn Against]

28. A regulation against killing people who pose no threat should address this

It is pretty common sense, if you are going to claim self defense then you sure as hell better be able to show it really was self defense. Innocent until proven guilty needs to be applied to shooting victims, if someone takes another person's life then they damn well better be able to show it was justified. Oops should not cut it when there is a dead body and a smoking gun in the shooter's hand.

[Blanket Statements]

32. Soooo people should assume intruders are innocent

Until they so something?

[Bjorn Against]

60. Yes, people should assume their daughter is innocent.

They should also assume that they don't need to start shooting before they are even aware of the situation.

[Blanket Statements]

61. So he should have assumed it was his daughter?

What if he was wrong?

[Bjorn Against]

65. There is no "what if he was wrong", he was wrong and an innocent person is dead

Shoot first ask questions later is never a good idea.

[Blanket Statements]

67. Ahhh so if he wrongly assumed it was his daughter

And she ended up raped by an intruder, that would be the better outcome?

[LonePirate]

120. Would she still be alive afterwards?

[Blanket Statements]

121. Who knows...

[Ed Suspicious]

177. Yes. It would have been a better outcome. Choice between maybe raped and actually murdered...

I'll take my chances and ask who's there before I pull the trigger.

[Blanket Statements]

179. Easy to do when it's not you in the house

[Ed Suspicious]

182. Easy to do when it is in my house. I don't keep guns, don't build moats stocked with alligators and

pitbulls to keep back the impending hordes, and I don't carry guns. I might ask who goes there, but any attempt at damaging the other person would be after confirmation.

[Blanket Statements]

184. Everyone knows what they would have done

After the fact

[uppityperson]

188. Well at least he won't have to worry about her getting raped, what with him kiling her

A win win situation all the way around, right?


just in case anyone takes me at all seriously, it is sarcasm

[LonePirate]

116. Why would he assume the person was not his wife or daughter or some other relative?

If I am living with several other people and I hear a noise at 6 in the morning, I am going to think someone woke up and was making breakfast. My first thought is not to grab a gun and start blasting people. What's with the shoot first and ask questions later routine?

Besides, when do burglaries occur at 6 am on a winter morning in Colorado? That is such an odd time for a burglary.

This guy needs to be locked up on some sort of homicide charge. He certainly needs his gun rights revoked.

[Blanket Statements]

119. Your living situation has no bearing on his

[LonePirate]

122. Again, what sort of monster living with children, easily assumes a noise is a burglar?

You evidently have not lived with children if you are willing to defend this loser because he overreacted to a noise when an any rational person would have automatically thought it was a kid or spouse.

[Blanket Statements]

125. A man who calls 911 before he goes out of the bedroom

We don't know if he was startled and pulled the trigger or just shot at what he thought was the intruder.
We also don't know what kind of neighborhood he was in

[LonePirate]

134. What difference do any of those excuses make?

He was living with a child and unexpected noises are daily if not hourly occurrences when you live with children.

This guy was a trigger happy, paranoid, irresponsible parent. He should never be left around children or guns ever again.

[Blanket Statements]

136. Clearly the noise at 6am was not ordinary

His call to 911 is evidence of that

[LonePirate]

138. His 911 call is not evidence the noise was not ordinary. He could be covering his tracks.

The 911 call could simply be a cover story he concocted to cover up the murder of his stepdaughter.

All we know is that he called 911 due what he thought was a noise or burglary. We do not know if the victim was killed before or after the 911 call.

[Blanket Statements]

139. Then can we wait for the investigation to conclude

Before we convict him?

[LonePirate]

141. No. He's guilty of killing another person as described above.

The investigation is merely to decide if criminal charges should be filed and if so, which ones, depending on if the act was justifiable or not.

Regardless of what the DA does, he's already guilty in the court of public opinion which the internet hosts.

[Blanket Statements]

144. Criminal charges are all that really matter

I'd rather be compassionate than proclaim him a killer worthy of scorn

[LonePirate]

146. Killing his stepdaughter due to his stupidity makes him a killer worthy of scorn.

He doesn't deserve any compassion for this senseless act. If he feared for his safety, why not stay locked or holed up in his bedroom or whatever room he was in when he called 911. Why did he feel it was better to take the law into his own hands than wait for the police to respond given that he had just called them? Why not scream something to threaten the alleged intruder so that they can either flee or identify themselves.

This guy wanted to kill someone and he got he his wish.

[Blanket Statements]

147. It must be nice to be able to divine the intentions

Of people you've never met.
I choose to feel sorrow for him and his family

[LonePirate]

148. Aren't you divining his intentions but from the opposite angle?

I feel sorrow for the dead girl's mother and other relatives. I do not feel sorrow for the man who killed her. He chose to fire a gun at another human being. I cannot feel sorrow for someone who perpetrated that act against an innocent child. Had he not fired and if he had waited for the police to arrive, she would still be alive today.

[Blanket Statements]

149. Nope. Unless he murdered her, I have no choice

But to assume it was a mistake.

I need not condemn him or assume his desire was to kill someone at some point.

And, had he waited and it was an actual intruder who killed him or a member of his family would you feel better about his actions?

[LonePirate]

151. If his desire wasn't to kill, was it to maim or threaten?

He fired a gun, most likely with the intention of hitting the target he was aiming to hit. Otherwise, why fire it at all when he could have used his voice to announce he had a loaded weapon and was prepared to use it?

If he didn't have a gun or if he hadn't fired it in this situation where there was no intruder, she would still be alive. Suppositions based on hypothetical events have no bearing here. He shot and killed his step-daughter due to his own stupidity or paranoia or his own incompetence or some pathetic machismo that compelled him to think he could be a hero.

I look forward to the findings of the investigation. He'll probably walk away a free man due to that Make My Day law; but at least he will be wracked by guilt all because he thought he was a brave and tough person with a gun, assuming of course it was an accident and not an intentional act of murder. I sure have my doubts.

[Blanket Statements]

152. I don't know his intentions. Your claim was

That he wanted to kill someone.

We don't know if he was startled and the discharge was unintentional. We don't know if he challenged and received no response and we don't know if he just shot at a figure assuming it was a burglar.

We don't know anything except his daughter is dead in what is being called an accidental shooting.

If the facts change, then my opinion will change but I'm not going to assume he was paranoid or out to kill someone and will feel sorrow for him and his family.

[Comrade Grumpy]

164. Dude. the guy shot and killed his step-daughter.

That's a serious fuck-up, at best. And all your contortions and "what ifs" don't change that.

[Blanket Statements]

166. And your desires don't make him a criminal

[Comrade Grumpy]

169. What desires?

[Blanket Statements]

172. Read your posts, figure it out

[tblue37]

190. This! nt

[ManiacJoe]

68. No, the "intruder" should be identified well enough

to establish friend/foe before being shot.

[Blanket Statements]

71. I agree. But that doesn't make his mistake a crime

[ManiacJoe]

77. It does in most jurisdictions.

To be able to claim self defense, you have to be able to articulate "reasonable fear". If you have not identified the "intruder" well enough to establish friend/foe, you have not met that bar. Your "reasonable fear" does not have to be accurate, but it does need to be reasonable, which in this case it appears to not be, based on the lack of details in the article.

[Blanket Statements]

79. He called 911

He reasonably assumed there was an intrusion

[ManiacJoe]

84. Correct.

What he did not do was reasonably ID the suspected intruder to establish friend/foe.

[Blanket Statements]

88. Which would make it involuntary manslaughter

[ManiacJoe]

90. And that is a crime one can be charged with.

[Blanket Statements]

93. I agree...

But it doesn't mean he should or will be charged

[ManiacJoe]

105. Your posts #71 and #93 are at odds.

Just sayin'.

[Blanket Statements]

109. You're right

I was incorrect in my first post

[Jenoch]

83. Self defense?

What does self defense have to do with anything with the information so far released?

[ManiacJoe]

87. It is the only legal excuse for killing another person.

Defense of self or other innocent party.

[Jenoch]

92. There is not information with this

for the debate to even start. The hyperbole is stifling.

[madinmaryland]

95. Though it should be. The thought he actually murdered his step daughter

probably will not even bother him.

[Blanket Statements]

96. Murder requires intent

Or reckless disregard for human life

[madinmaryland]

101. As a parent of a 15 year old daughter, I see this as reckless disregard for human life, though

maybe not first degree murder.

[Bjorn Against]

20. Is his claim not that he believed she was a robber?

If he believed she was a robber then it is clear he intentionally shot her, it was not an accidental discharge by his own account of what happened.

[Blanket Statements]

25. You think he intentionally shot his daughter

Or he shot, mistaking his daughter for an intruder?

[Bjorn Against]

31. He intentionally shot a person

He may not have known it was his daughter, but it appears he intentionally shot a person without even knowing who he was shooting at. The gun was shot intentionally even if he was not aware of who he was shooting, it was no accident.

[Blanket Statements]

34. Shooting his daughter was the accident

[Bjorn Against]

62. No, he intentionally shot her

You may want to live in a world where people can just shoot at someone without even knowing who they are or what they are doing, but most of us view people who are that trigger happy as being extremely dangerous.

[Blanket Statements]

63. He knowingly shot his daughter, now?

[Bjorn Against]

66. I said intentionally not knowingly

Yes he intentionally shot his daughter, even if he did not know who she was he intentionally pulled the trigger.

[Blanket Statements]

69. Intentionally shooting his daughter would mean he knew

He was shooting his daughter.
Furthermore we don't know if he got startled and pulled the trigger unintentionally

[Bjorn Against]

80. No it would just mean he intentionally pulled the trigger

Or at the very least intentionally picked up the gun and pointed it her direction, even with the remote possibility that his finger did slip he did still intentionally carry the gun out to the area she was in.

[Blanket Statements]

81. So his reckless act was picking up a gun?

A

[Bjorn Against]

86. His reckless act was shooting the gun without even knowing what he was shooting at

You were trying to suggest it may have been accidental and I was pointing out why it was an intentional act, a gun was negligently discharged based on a decision he made.

[Blanket Statements]

91. He had a lawful right to shoot at an intruder

His mistake does not make his action reckless.
Had he fired through a door or the wall,maybe

[ManiacJoe]

98. Not necessarily.

> He had a lawful right to shoot at an intruder.

To lawfully shoot someone, the shooter must have reasonable fear. In some cases, the law will define when one should have that fear (castle laws). However, to qualify under any law as self defense, the target must first be identified as the attacker.

[Blanket Statements]

99. That's only in duty to retreat states

Where one has to be in imminent danger

Under castle doctrine, the assumption is there is a threat at the time of the intrusion.

[ManiacJoe]

102. That would be very much incorrect.

Under "castle doctrine" the fear is assumed to be reasonable because
- the intruder is not authorized to be in the house, AND
- the intruder used force to gain entry, which implies a weapon.

[Blanket Statements]

106. The actual law involves only the act of trespass

And fear of the lawful occupant

[ManiacJoe]

110. That is not the usual case.

Your state's laws may be different from the norm.

[Blanket Statements]

112. That is the basis for the castle doctrine law

The burden is on the state to prove it wasn't reasonable.

[firsttimer]

103. Already established by the 911 call

reasonable fear

[ManiacJoe]

108. No. The call just establishes a fear of an intruder.

The "reasonable fear" to shoot a suspected intruder is based on the target being IDed well enough to be the intruder. That was not done, assuming the father would not intentionally shoot his family members.

[Blanket Statements]

111. That's not what the law says

[ManiacJoe]

114. That would depend on whose law your are refering to.

That IS what the law says for Florida and the other states using Florida as a template.

[Blanket Statements]

117. This is the Florida law

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

[ManiacJoe]

123. Good quote but,

1a and 1b both require "unlawfully and forcibly entered", thus the intruder has the ability and desire to cause harm (part of the definition of reasonable fear).

It still requires the defender to reasonably ID the chosen target as the suspected intruder.

[Blanket Statements]

127. Part B says the person has reason to believe

There was unlawful and forcible entry.

Forcible entry is not using a key to the front door

[ManiacJoe]

130. Correct, as far as you have gone.

[firsttimer]

113. I can go back to not having to establish facial recognition

in a case of a homeowner who reasonably believes someone is breaking in his house
by the actions being conducted by the target he ID , but I won't

[ManiacJoe]

115. Caught in the act of "breaking in" can be a reasonable ID.

Caught after the "breaking in" is finished is not a reasonable ID.

[Blanket Statements]

118. Nothing about ID

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

[ManiacJoe]

126. The ID has already been established at that point.

[Blanket Statements]

128. Noooo...it really hasn't

[ManiacJoe]

132. In this case, obviously not.

In the writing of the law, yes it has. In the eyes of the law, "unidentified person" does not equal "suspected intruder".

[firsttimer]

124. I'm not sure what you are trying to establish here but the last thing I want is an argument

over this . I wish that we weren't talking about something so tragic.

[ManiacJoe]

129. My point is that

"breaking in" (present tense) and "broken in" (past tense) are not the same thing. If the act of "breaking in" is not witnessed, then the actors cannot be IDed by the mere action.

[firsttimer]

133. It doesn't have to witnessed it can be heard to meet reasonable fear

Edit to add

Right now I'm not talking about this case in particular just reasonable actions by a home owner who believes he just had a break in

[ManiacJoe]

140. Reasonable fear that the act as occured, yes.

"Reasonable fear" that an unidentified person is the intruder, no.

Current courts and self defense schools define "reasonable fear" from an attacker as "ability, opportunity, jeopardy" from the identified "attacker".

In some cases of the law, for example some castle doctrine laws, the law will outline a few specific conditions when a "reasonable fear" exists and is not open to interpretation by the LEOs and prosecutors. Other times, the reasonableness of the fear will need to be articulated by the defender.

[firsttimer]

145. The last sentence of your post is I think at least

what was articulated that morning by the father . And by the actions so far by the officers who
responded and took statements mostly likely agreed by the evidence present.

Of course this will fall on DA's desk but what the officers report reads will
weigh heavy if charges are to be filed on the father.

[Comrade Grumpy]

165. And look what that got him.

As for whether his actions were "reckless," I can only point to the dead body of the step-daughter on the floor.

[Blanket Statements]

167. The legal definition of reckless isn't the same as

As what you wish it was

[Comrade Grumpy]

170. Is something wrong with you?

You keep imputing desires and wishes to me that I never expressed, or even hinted at. Weird.

[Blanket Statements]

171. Clearly your posts are emotional and short on reason

Seems the only thing wrong with me is my refusal to react emotionally to the story

[Comrade Grumpy]

175. You appear to refuse to recognize that there is a dead body lying on the floor.

Which is the fundamental fact here: Somebody got killed. An innocent person. The guy's step-daughter.

You seem so caught up in your legalism that you appear unable to address that.

[Blanket Statements]

178. Uhhh, what do you want me to do about the body?

I feel sorrow for the family and the father.
And I don't think it appropriate that the father be criminally charged for an accident

[Ed Suspicious]

180. Clearly your posts are robotic and designed to stick to the NRA approved script. Seems the only

thing wrong with you is the inability to exhibit a feeling person's level of humanity or reason.

[Blanket Statements]

181. Clearly you've not read my posts.

[Kingofalldems]

85. Seen it all now.

[SammyWinstonJack]

162. Round and round and round you go....

[seattledo]

70. I agree

There is no evidence that he didn't know.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

153. Not an accident

He wanted to defend himself against whatever human he thought had entered his home, and successfully did so. Unfortunately for him, it was someone I assume he cared about. That's the Sword of Damocles for gun owners now, isn't it?

[Bjorn Against]

3. Hosts please note that this is a big news story from a mainstream source

A person is dead and the shooter is being allowed to walk because of the weak gun laws that allow people to shoot first and ask questions later and then claim it was self defense. This is a big news story and we should be able to discuss it in GD.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Seems that way to me, also. Thanks. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

9. Please get it right

No charges filed "YET", per the story it is up to the prosecutors.

[Bjorn Against]

14. He should have been arrested right away

He shot a person without even knowing who that person was or what she was doing, there is no excuse for that and he should have been charged immediately.

[Blanket Statements]

15. Charged with what?

[Marrah_G]

19. Killing another human being by his own grossly negligent actions?

But.... pro-gun groups has made sure that those laws rarely get on the books.

Every gun own is a responsible gun owner...until they aren't.

[Blanket Statements]

22. Yeah, but what would be the actual charge?

Involuntary manslaughter? Manslaughter? Murder?

If it wasn't intentional, what would be the criminal charge?

[Marrah_G]

26. I would think manslaughter at least

[Bjorn Against]

21. I think manslaughter would be an appropriate charge in this case.

[Blanket Statements]

23. Involuntary?

[ManiacJoe]

33. No, the act of shooting was intentional.

He intended to shoot the person; he just did not ID her before he did so.
Violation of Safety Rule #4.

[Blanket Statements]

36. Making a mistake doesn't make the action criminal

[ManiacJoe]

38. It does when the act is known to place others at risk.

See the definition of manslaughter.

[Blanket Statements]

41. Mistaken identity

[ManiacJoe]

44. Thus manslaughter instead of murder.

See the definition of manslaughter.

[Blanket Statements]

49. In Colorado it is defined by a reckless act

[ManiacJoe]

50. Shooting an unidentified target meets that definition.

[Blanket Statements]

51. Involuntary manslaughter when the act is otherwise lawful

Which would more appropriately apply

[firsttimer]

40. He did ID

[ManiacJoe]

45. Where are you reading that from?

[firsttimer]

48. I didn't read it

[ManiacJoe]

52. So, assuming you were not there to witness the act,

you just pulled the statement out of thin air?

[Bjorn Against]

47. So you are saying he knew it was his daughter and shot anyway?

Because if he did ID then that would mean he knew it was his daughter, in that case it sounds like second degree murder. The article suggests manslaughter would be the appropriate charge, but if what you are saying is true and he did ID then he should face murder charges.

[firsttimer]

54. It doesn't mean that , he ID someone breaking or sneaking in his home at 6 am

You don't need facial recognition for this .

It was tragic but it might not meet or should meet criminal charges

[Blanket Statements]

57. In Colorado, involuntary manslaughter

Is the act of killing someone during an otherwise lawful action

[firsttimer]

72. Extenuating circumstances come into place in a case like this

and there could be plenty.

That's why I said you need more info before calling for this father to be charged.

Was she sliding in a hallway window ?

Was she locked out and decided to jimmy a back door to get in?
Did he call out and she didn't answer?

who knows , we need more facts before calling for this fathers head on plate

[Bjorn Against]

37. No, he voluntarily pulled the trigger

There is nothing involuntary about aiming a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger, not knowing who you are shooting at is no excuse as that shows even greater negligence.

[Blanket Statements]

39. He could have been startled and accidentally pulled the trigger

We don't know the circumstances.
If he called out and she didn't identify herself, what was he to assume?

[Bjorn Against]

42. In either case it is negligence

He killed an innocent person with his gun, that can not just be wiped away with an "Oops".

[Blanket Statements]

43. It doesn't make it criminal

[Bjorn Against]

58. In any sane society it would be criminal, with NRA written laws they may be able to get him off

Self defense laws are way too loose in this country if people are able to shoot people who posed no threat to them and then claim self defense, as cases like George Zimmerman show us however killers are able to get off the hook way too easy by claiming self defense in cases where there was no real threat.

Sadly the US has way too many nut cases who think killing innocent people is OK as long as you claim self defense when you kill them, it does not even have to be self defense just the words "well I thought..." are good enough for some people. For this reason sometimes people get off on things like this, but in any sane world this guy would face charges for what he did.

[Blanket Statements]

59. What would be sane about criminally charging

Every person who made a mistake

[Bjorn Against]

73. That is one huge strawman, I never said everyone who makes a mistake should face charges

Shooting someone who poses no threat to you is not a simple mistake however, that is something that has serious consequences but can be easily avoided if people have even an ounce of responsibility.

[Blanket Statements]

75. If he mistakenly took her as an intruder

Then he thought there was a threat

That's why these laws exist.

[firsttimer]

46. He ID the target by seeing a person breaking or sneaking in his home

6am in the morning , he already thought it was a breaking by the evidence he had already called 911

This tragic what happened but I won't jump on the band wagon just yet on calling for charges

[Blanket Statements]

53. I agree with you. It's tragic

And most likely accidental

[Bortman33]

154. In what month

do you pay your NRA dues. Or, maybe the question should be, when does the NRA pay you?

There is only one fact in play here - the man shot his step-daughter. You want to condemn anyone who calls it anything other then your "accidental" characterization. Were you there? You know nothing more then anyone else on this board, so stop mealy mouthing around to justify your shoot on site BS.

If the state wants to propagate laws that let you shoot anyone you want, it should be judged manslaughter if you choose to shoot and you're wrong, even if it’s a GD accident. You want the gun for protection, you kill an innocent person, you are a killer, you go to jail, PERIOD.

Yea, I know, I'm banned, but I'm really sick and tired of these young people dieing for nothing but cowboy antics. What's almost as bad, is to read these posts, by people like you, that only want to manipulate the legal definition of KILL to some form of self and property protection fantasy.

For god's sake, a young girl is fricking dead, WRONGLY KILLED by her step-father, to protect what?

[Blanket Statements]

155. Yes, he killed his stepdaughter. He's not been charged criminally

Until then, I can only assume it was accidental. I don't think all accidents are criminal. I also don't assume anyone who uses a gun in the manner he did had a desire to kill anyone.

I feel sorrow for him and his family. It has to be terrible to know that your actions caused a death, especially of a loved one.

And killing someone isn't always a crime nor should it be.

And I'm not going to alert on you just because we disagree

[ManiacJoe]

56. That does not meet the normal definition of identifying.

What you describe is normally called "shooting at shadows".

[firsttimer]

76. No..... it is not shooting at shadows

unless you know there are in fact friendlys you are rescuing ......
it was a target he ID

[ManiacJoe]

82. "Pick" does not equal "identify".

He picked a target. Had he identified the target before shooting at it, he would not have shot it.

[firsttimer]

94. We could go round and round on this and I don't want to man

This is tragic what happened and the one suffering right now is this father.

It will change the rest of his life whether he is charged or not his life as he knows it is over
by the grief he will have until the day he dies

[LonePirate]

131. How do we know he didn't identify the target? Maybe the whole thing was intentional and he's lying.

Someone shoots another person and the DA is supposed to take their word for that it was all an accident?

[ManiacJoe]

135. This entire conversation is based on the assumption

that the father would not intentionally shoot his family members.

> Maybe the whole thing was intentional and he's lying.

Could be. But that would be a separate conversation from this one.

[LonePirate]

137. Maybe he shot her, called 911 claiming a burglary to cover his tracks.

Can forensic pathologists determine the time of death to be before or after the time of the 911 call, assuming they are only minutes apart?

[ManiacJoe]

143. Possibly, but that is a different conversation from this one.

Feel free to start an upper-level branch to discuss it.

[Jenoch]

89. "...shooter is being allowed to walk..."

This terrible tragedy happened about 14 hours ago, do you want the guy executed by now?

Stop all of your hyperbole until there is enough information to debate.

[Bjorn Against]

97. I oppose the death penalty and I support his right to a fair trial

But if you shoot an innocent person you should be arrested and charged immediately, gun nuts should not be treated differently than other killers just because they say "Oops" and because most other killers would be arrested immediately if they were found with a smoking gun in their hand and a dead body on the ground then this guy should be too.

[Jenoch]

104. We don't don't know what we don't know.

Your posts on this thread are mostly hyperbole.

[Bjorn Against]

107. We know she is dead and we know he shot her, that is not hyperbole that is fact

He shot and killed an innocent person, that is a fact. You may want to pretend he did nothing wrong but most sane people would know that he fucked up big time.

[Iggo]

160. Yep.

[savalez]

156. Here here.

IMO it was a bad decision to lock this in LBN. Meanwhile, these LBN stories, for whatever reason, are not also deemed "local":

Boy, 11, delivers gifts to homeless in Detroit
Tiger fatally mauls mate at San Diego Zoo
NYC expands smoking ban to include e-cigarettes

etc...

[savalez]

173. WTF? 'Santa' shot with pellet gun at Christmas toy giveaway

is allowed in LBN? But a dead teenage girl shot by her step-dad is considered local and locked out of LBN?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014680764

This is what happens when a single host is put in charge of a group. Too much power. If an hidden agenda exists can be abused. Locks should be also up to a jury.

[Duckhunter935]

6. negligence

and I hope he is charged.

Failed to follow the most basic firearms safety. Rule #4

14 yo sneaking back into the house at 6 AM

[firsttimer]

35. Lets wait and read the facts before you wish him to be charged

[jberryhill]

16. Better safe than sorry, I guess

[savalez]

168. That's a

powerful statement. Ouch. Clever.

[Ed Suspicious]

183. Safety at all costs!

[firsttimer]

30. I need more information before I can form an opinion on this

Did she live in the same house?

Did she stay out all night and was sneaking in the house?

A lot of questions unanswered in that article.

The one thing I will say is there are no accidents when handling a firearm.
Even in a malfunction the muzzle should always be pointed in a safe direction

[Vashta Nerada]

55. Shoot first, ask questions later.

From a responsible gun owner, I'm sure.

[Iggo]

159. It's the Gunfucker Way.

And it shall not be questioned!

[billh58]

64. Just another day

in the most armed, dangerous, and trigger happy nation in the "civilized" world.

[TBF]

74. Colorado? Again? Is there something

in the water there ... over and over this happens.

[valerief]

78. If only more people had guns, more people could be shot. --gungeoneer logic

[ManiacJoe]

100. Well, valerief's logic any way.

[deathrind]

142. Wow...

Giving the benefit of the doubt that this was another one of those "tragic accidents" This person lowered his weapon and pulled the trigger without having a clue who or what he was shooting at. That certainly falls with in "negligence" of a criminal nature. He should be held accountable for his action.

[Iggo]

158. Gunfucker, as usual, too stupid to own a gun.

[ileus]

185. Nothing a rail mounted torch wouldn't have prevented.

Or even a handheld light.

Always ID your target...

[Blue_Tires]

192. Or god forbid some common sense...

I'm interested to see how some people spin this one...

[Vinca]

189. Assuming it was a burglar, he wouldn't have deserved the death penalty.

I don't understand what makes it morally right to shoot to kill in defense of property. If he's armed and coming at you, fine, let it rip, but if he only wants your lousy television let the courts deliver the sentence.

[firsttimer]

191. Typically a burglar won't break in when you're home

That's why most home burglaries happen in day time hours when most people
are at work or out and about.

[Vinca]

194. That still doesn't justify an execution.

[99Forever]

193. Must. Shoot. Things.

Mo gunz.. mo gunz... mo gunz!