Teenager Shot And Killed After Allegedly Stealing Bale Of Hay

[The Straight Story]

Teenager Shot And Killed After Allegedly Stealing Bale Of Hay

BLUE CREEK, Ohio – A teenager is dead after allegedly stealing a bale of hay.

The Scioto County Sheriff said that Nathaniel Kennedy, 17, was killed on Sunday by the caretaker of local shooting range, NBC 4's Ana Jackson reported.

Kennedy and a friend, Jarrod Fyffe, reportedly went to a shooting range on Sunday. When they found it was closed the two decided to grab a bale of hay from the property.

The caretaker, Eric Whisman, 35, fired a shot at the boys.

Kennedy jumped back into his truck and took off. About a quarter of a mile down the road he noticed something was wrong.

A bullet had gone through the seat of the truck and into his back. Kennedy died at a hospital in West Virginia.

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2007-10-16-0004.html

[atreides1]

1. Let me start this one

The man was doing his job, by protecting the property. If their parents had been doing their job, those two kids would not have been out stealing hay bales!

By the way, this is sarcasm.

[hlthe2b]

3. shoot first, think later...

:eyes:


What a tragedy...

[TX-RAT]

7. Yep

Pointing a gun at the caretaker probably wasn't a real bright idea.

[Kingshakabobo]

18. I guess you missed the part were they say the guns were unloaded....

....and under the seats? Or the part were he was shot in the back? Through the seat of the truck?

Apparently the cops aren't being intentionally obtuse because THEY didn't buy the story.

[TX-RAT]

23. Nope, i seen it

Pointing empty guns a people is just a dangerous as pointing loaded ones. Pointing guns at people always has bad results. He said they pointed a gun, and low and behold, there just happen to be 2 guns in the truck. The fact that he said they were unloaded and under the seat is irrelevant. Allot of things can happen in a 1/2 mile. Let the investigators do their job, and see if we can get the true story. Both have a right to have their side of the story told and judged.

[tabasco]

25. And of course because he says so makes it so.

Sounds like the lies of a criminal trying to cover his ass to me.

I suppose they were pointing the gun at him as they were driving off. The bullet went through the seat of the truck, presumably into the kid's BACK.

[TX-RAT]

26. At this point his story has just as much credibility as the other.

Wait for the investigation.

[mvccd1000]

32. Lies of a criminal?

I'm sure the caretaker knew they just happened to gave guns in the truck before he made up that particular lie, too.

On edit: not that I can EVER imagine a scenario where it is ok to shoot someone in the back. As soon as the threat is stopped, the need for deadly force is gone. A fleeing suspect is no threat.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Uh, a kid swiping a hay bale to use in a Halloween scene set up

IS NOT A CRIMINAL!

He's just a dumb kid, and nobody deserved to die for being dumb.

[mvccd1000]

47. I was referring to the post above me, where it was said that...

... the caretaker's story about the kid having a gun sounded like, "The lies of a criminal." I was thinking, "Sure, the caretaker just happened to know that kid had a gun hidden under the seat of the truck when he made up the lie about them waving it around."

C'mon; if the guns had really stayed under the seat the whole time, how could the caretaker know they had a gun to make up that "lie?"

Still (as I said in my post), there is never a reason to shoot anyone in the back. Had he been shot when he was waving the gun around, I'd say he caused his own death. Getting shot in the back, on the other hand, sounds criminal.

[fishwax]

97. well, they were trying to get into a gun range

so them having guns in the truck wouldn't be much of a stretch (though not guaranteed, I suppose).

But aside from that, it's not a choice between either (a) the caretaker was telling the truth and they pointed the gun or (b) he lied, somehow knowing they had guns on them. It's also possible that (c) he just made it up and they happened to have a gun he didn't know about.

[bighart]

49. STEALING IS A CRIME

regardless of what is being stolen or it's intended use

[Scout]

52. and we DON'T believe in the DEATH PENALTY for property theft....

even were a judge, jury and trial to determine so...

much less getting shot in the back while fleeing the scene of a property crime.

Jeezus h christ on a pogo stick, what do you believe in, death penalty for parking violations?

[Swede]

53. Are you okay with killing the kid?

This is really,really wrong.

[malaise]

56. This is one sick post

The kid was shot in his back and killed.

[wicket]

57. Murder is appropriate punishment for stealing a bale of hay?

Are you FUCKING kidding me? :nopity:

[bighart]

61. I never said the kid should have been shot or even shot at.

I was simply responding to the comment that the kids actions were not criminal, THEY WERE. I think the guy who shot at the truck was without a doubt wrong for doing so, however it does not change the fact that the kid was engaged in a criminal act at the time.

[The Straight Story]

69. Well, while stealing is a crime, he was never convicted of stealing :)

and it does say, in the headline, he was allegedly stealing (so not sure why the point was brought up).

[bighart]

71. my original comment was in response to comment #43:

"Uh, a kid swiping a hay bale to use in a Halloween scene set up

IS NOT A CRIMINAL!

He's just a dumb kid, and nobody deserved to die for being dumb"

If the kid were trespassing on private property and "swiping" a hay bale his actions WERE CRIMINAL.

[bighart]

74. I have myself

been shot at while trespassing on in a farmers pasture when I was a teen. My friends and I used to drive out in the sticks and park along gravel roads and in fields to drink and smoke dope. We were shot at on more than one occasion, even had a window shot out one night. Were the farmers wrong for shooting at us?

[gollygee]

75. Yes, they were wrong for shooting at you

if they suspected illegal activity and felt it warranted action, they should have called the police. It isn't ok to shoot at people unless your life is in danger if you don't shoot.

[bighart]

83. well, one thing my mom did do for me

was teach me to accept responsibility for my actions. While I think the farmers may have over-reacted to having a bunch of teenagers in their pastures and fields, what we were doing was criminal. We would do donut's in the pastures in our cars and leave a huge mess, and sometimes just for fun would chase the livestock around, you know kids just doing dumb stuff. I don't believe any of the farmers who shot at us were trying to hit us, but an accident could have happened. Bottom line still remains that if we had not been engaged in the activity we were engaged in we never would have been shot at. We were more responsible for it than the farmers who were just trying to protect their property from a bunch of hell raising kids.

[gollygee]

85. If they shoot at you and hit you, that is not an accident

Shooting at someone and hitting them is good aim, not an accident.

It doesn't matter if you were doing something irresponsible or illegal. Shooting someone, or shooting at someone and missing, is less responsible and more illegal than smoking pot and driving in donuts. Period.

[bighart]

86. I guess I just see it differently.

These farmers were, are, honest, hardworking people who were just trying to keep us from destroying their crops and fences and scaring the hell out of their livestock, which can effect for example a milk cow's production. Calling the law was not really an option as it would have taken up to an hour for the sheriff to get there, so they were doing what they thought was the best way to handle it, after all would you want to confront a group of 15 to 20 teenage boys by yourself?

[gollygee]

89. I would have waited an hour for the police

honest people don't shoot at other people.

I live in a fairly rural area. In what rural area did you live where it would take an hour for the sheriff to show up? In rural western Michigan it wouldn't take more than 20 minutes.

[Solon]

90. So you advocate for vigilante justice and irresponsible use of firearms...

simply for convenience's sake? What the fuck is your malfunction?

[bighart]

92. no I advocate that my actions were wrong

and I was equally, or more, at fault for putting these guys in the position they were in. So what is your malfunction.

[Solon]

94. Just because one person, or group of people, act irresponsibly, doesn't give yet another person or..

group permission to act irresponsibly as well.

[Bassic]

181. If you belive that sort of thing deserves deadly force,

you are serioulsly deluded.

[bighart]

99. and by the way

I don't view protecting ones property or means of making a living an irresponsible use of a firearm.

[Solon]

101. And now I know your malfunction, property, in your world, is worth more than human beings.

That's simply disgusting.

[bighart]

103. no, I would neve shot at someone unless

my own life were in mortal danger. Property to me is of very little value, a farmer whose milk cows are being scared spitless might just have a different view. And while I have never heard of anyone around here being killed by a farmer trying to chase them off their land, I know of a farmer being run over and killed by a carload of kids who were trespassing on his land and he went to confront them. One of my best friends was driving the truck that killed him!

[Solon]

105. And that is just as wrong...

But it is still no excuse to use lethal force against people that don't pose a mortal danger to yourself. A farmer may have a different view, that's fine, but they better not act on it, that's illegal in most states.

[wicket]

120. You're all over the place buddy

:hi:

[bighart]

122. maybe so,

but while I DO NOT condone the shooting of anyone, especially in the back as they are fleeing, I also DO NOT condone the actions of the young man who was shoot. This is a tragedy of irresponsible behavior on the part of BOTH parties involved. The young man should NEVER have been shot at, but he should also not have been where he was and doing what he was doing if the initial reports are correct.

[wicket]

138. I don't either, but MURDER is a ton worse than what the young men may/may not have done

:shrug:

[bighart]

146. How do you define murder?

Was my friend guilty of murder when he unintentionally ran over someone? I would not call that murder. I have another friend who is serving life without parole for purposely shooting a guy in the face with a shot gun at close range over a bag of pot, that I would call murder. It's another subject, but it is really sad what people will do for their drug of choice.

[wicket]

147. Why do you keep trying to change the subject from the topic at hand?

This is not about what your friends have done. The man pointed a gun at 2 fleeing boys & killed one. Now he's trying to pull a Bart Simpson "I didn't mean to do it!" What is it about this that you don't understand :shrug:

[bighart]

148. I believe I do understand.

Everyone is quick to vilify this man as a "murderer" and act like the boys have no culpability in what happened. I disagree with that. They were allegedly engaged in a criminal act at the time. If the situation were reversed and they had run over and killed the security guy should they be labeled as murderers? I think that the circumstances of the incident are important in determining what the appropriate charges and punishments should be. The way the security guy responded to this incident was WRONG, but the question that I am asking myself is should he be charged with murder or a lesser charge of manslaughter. If these young men had run over him in their attempt to escape I would not be advocating for them to be charged with murder either. It is a tragic case of two people making poor decisions that led to the death of a young man. Criminal behavior is inherently dangerous, and by engaging in that behavior you are placing yourself in the path of danger. You trespass on the private property of a SHOOTING RANGE, and guess what there is a high likelihood you may be SHOT AT.

[wicket]

149. Sounds an awful like blaming the victim

:hi:

[bighart]

151. so are you saying the victim has no responsibility for the choice

he made to allegedly break the law and put him self at risk?

[wicket]

152. He was a kid, he did something stupid, but did not deserved to be killed over a bail of hay

This is an underage CHILD we are talking about. The adult who killed him is supposed to know better, and now he's been charged with murder & attempted murder. He's going to have to live with the choices he made, but at least he gets to LIVE.

[bighart]

155. I have been very clear on my view of the trigger-happy guy

who shot this young man. HE WAS WRONG IN WHAT HE DID. I believe that to my core. The fact remains that HE did not make the choice that led these two young men to be allegedly breaking the law. Should the other young man be charged with accessory to murder? In some states if someone is killed while YOU are committing a crime you can be charged with their death and it doesn't matter if you were directly responsible for causing that death, example someone has a massive heart attack and dies while you are committing a burglary you can be charged with murder because your actions were indirectly responsible for the death.
I try to avoid knee-jerk reactions to things and analyze ALL of the facts and mitigating circumstances before I reach a decision on how I respond to something.

[wicket]

157. You made some knee jerk reactions in attempting to blame the victims

That's what I took issue with. Guess it's up to the courts to decide.

[bighart]

160. I don't think that I had a knee-jerk reaciton

in blaming the shooting victim. I don't condone theft anymore than I do murder however and IF these two were involved in a criminal act at the time then they bear some responsibility for the outcome.

[TX-RAT]

153. Seems both of you have forgot one little detail.

He still says they were pointing a gun at him, and 2 guns were found in the vehicle. Pointing guns at people always ends up ugly.

[wicket]

154. That's what he, who has been charged with murder, says

The boy who survived the attack begs to differ.

[TX-RAT]

161. The boy who survived the attack begs to differ.

You mean the one who was caught committing 2 different crimes, trespassing and theft. They've already committed 2 crimes, why is it so hard to believe, that he could possibly lie about a third?

[wicket]

162. Why do you take the word of someone charged with murder?

He's got a million reasons to lie. One of his victims will never be able to tell his side of the story. And trespassing & theft are not reasons to use deadly force.

[TX-RAT]

167. Why do you take the word of someone charged with murder?

Why do you automatically assume he's lieing?

[YankmeCrankme]

172. Doesn't seem like he's lying about what he did. He admits it, in fact.

He would be less likely to lie about this "third" crime, especially if the first two admissions are correct. Why would they be carrying unloaded weapons to load a bale of hay into their truck?

Seems the guy who did the killing has more to gain by lying than the surviving kid.

[TX-RAT]

174. I'm not to sure about that.

The boy says they were stealing a bail of hay, yet none was in the truck, and no claim by the shooter, that he actually witnessed them trying to load hay. There's allot of investigating to be done here. I'd also like to hear, what kind of rifle the shooter was using.

[YankmeCrankme]

180. Post 54 has video of truck and gun, which was scoped. NT

[TX-RAT]

184. Thank you, didn't see the video in that link.

[Hangingon]

195. The Columbus Disppatch carried a story yesterday

The rifle was a .270 - no mention of scope or action type. Not much more detail than the OP site. Still lots of investigation needed here.

[bighart]

156. that is an excellent point.

I don't know if that can be proven but it should be investigated to the fullest. If that is the case the security guy WAS JUSTIFIED in his actions and the other kid should be charged with the death of his friend.

[wicket]

158. The fatal shot came when they were 1/4 mile down the road in their truck with their backs to him

HOW is that justified?? And the only one who has made this claim is the one who has been charged with murder. I have not seen this info in any of the other stories on this matter.

and the other kid should be charged with the death of his friend.

Wow....just wow. :wow:

[bighart]

163. a quarter of a mile is not that far.

And I was very clear in saying that IF IT CAN BE PROVEN that the 2 young men were brandishing firearms themselves than the security guard had a reason to believe that his life was in imminent danger and he had a reason and a right to protect himself.

[wicket]

164. It's far enough for them to not have been a threat to him

And according to the sheriffs investigating, they didn't even take the hay with them. He lined 'em up in his scope & took the fatal shot.

[TX-RAT]

166. The fatal shot came when they were 1/4 mile down the road

From what i read, it sounded more like he didnt realize he was shot until a quarter mile down the road. He may well have been sitting in the truck when the first shot was fired, and it was his partner who was brandishing a weapon. Many people have been shot and not realize it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning any of the actions taken by either party, hell i wouldn't shot somebody for stealing my truck. This will be investigated and hopefully the truth will come out.

[wicket]

168. No worries

:hi: I hope the truth comes out too. I only wish they had come by my grandfather's farm, he would've given them any amount of hay they want :( Sad all around.

[TX-RAT]

169. That's the way it is around here.

It's amazing the results you can get from just walking up to someone and ask.

[wicket]

179. Good to hear Vermont & Texas are alike like that

:hi:

[Bassic]

182. Whether or not their actions were wrong is irrelevant.

This man shot them in the back, therefore he is a murderer. Its quite simple really. If you kill someone who is not in the process of killing you, it's murder.

[bighart]

189. so if someone walks out in front your car and you hit and kill them

you should be charged with murder?

[Bassic]

190. Apples and oranges buddy.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that this boy swerved his truck in front of the bullet that killed him.

[NashVegas]

104. Being a Shooting Victim Doesn't Absolve Anyone of Personal Responsibility for Thieving

Nor does it wipe away their part in creating the tragedy.

[gollygee]

106. He is responsible for stealing hay, but not for being shot

That is the sole responsibility of the idiot who shot a truck that was driving away because some kids tried to steal some hay. People feel rage, and when they have guns in their hands they're dangerous. Either they need to learn to control their rage, or they need to not have guns.

[Solon]

109. The caretaker had a choice, to shoot or not to shoot, he chose wrong.

The fact of the matter is that, while the teenagers were being irresponsible, it doesn't absolve the shooter's culpability in this matter.

[karlrschneider]

88. If you accept responsibility for your own actions, you can't be a good DUer.

And god forbid you would ever think about using a gun to actually -defend- yourself. :eyes:
Oh yeah, and stealing is okay if the stuff isn't valuable or the stealer is young.

[Solon]

93. Yes, that is EXACTLY it...

Its not like a kid was MURDERED or anything here, no, it was fucking JUSTICE, in your world, where attempting to steal something, and not posing a threat to people warrants a death penalty.

[karlrschneider]

127. Apparently you do not know the definition of murder.

but you have a point...we should award the thief a posthumous medal of honor.

[Solon]

133. It wasn't First Degree Murder, but Second Degree, sounds like it to me...

it wasn't premeditated, but he DID intend to kill them, so to claim that it doesn't warrant a murder charge is just being ignorant.

[Oeditpus Rex]

144. And you know the shooter's intentions how?

[High Plains]

170. Um, 'cause he shot at them?

[gollygee]

95. The kids are responsible for their actions, and the guy who shot the kid is responsible for his

he shot a kid who was driving away for trying to steal a bale of hay. That is a less responsible action than trying to steal a bale of hay.

[bighart]

100. I agree completely

[karlrschneider]

128. I don't believe he was trying to hurt let alone kill anyone.

The thieves were stealing deliberately.

[Kingshakabobo]

129. Is that why he aimed square in the kids back? With a scope?

[Solon]

131. What the fuck was he doing shooting at them then?

You don't shoot at someone UNLESS you intend to kill them, period. I cannot believe you would even take this line of "reasoning" and I use that term loosely.

[YankmeCrankme]

96. Sorry, what you and your friends did shouldn't warrant death.

If being a juvenile delinquent or doing dumb stuff warranted killing them we'd have millions of kids dead every year. Thank *insert higher being name*, that most people don't think like that.

[Skittles]

142. repukes think like that

:puke:

[wicket]

165. Yup

:puke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. So is shooting people.

[tabasco]

91. Last time I checked, murder/manslaughter is a crime.

Amazing how many people rush to the defense of someone who shot a kid in the back for a bale of hay.

[Solon]

102. To some people, life isn't worth much. n/t

[mvccd1000]

141. Amazing how people rush to the defense of a thief, too....

Both parties were in the wrong here. One paid with his life for his criminal actions. The other will probably pay with prison.

Once again, the postulate that "two wrongs don't make a right" has been proved with authority.

[tabasco]

196. Christ Almighty. How dense are you?

Denouncing a murdering bastard who killed someone for a bale of hay is not rushing to the defense of thievery.

Dumbass.

[mvccd1000]

197. Apparently not as dense as some....

... my statement had nothing to do with the people denouncing the shooter; it DID have to do with the people defending the thief. For some reason, stealing is ok, but shooting is not? Both parties committed crimes. One paid with his life, one will pay with jail time.

There's certainly a dumbass here; I'm not convinced that it's me, though. :)

[KeineAhnung]

192. Tennesee vs. Garner n/t

[rug]

139. Shooting the kid gor him a murder charge. Real bright.

[damntexdem]

50. This IS what passes for thinking ...

on a gun range.

Nor did the poor, dead teen show any more sense than the "protector."

[The Straight Story]

4. Damn straight, lord only knows what that boy would have done to that hay

and hell, he could have been plotting to sell it to al-qaeda for use in their terrorist training camps...

[karlrschneider]

2. Musta been one slow bullet...

:eyes:

[wicket]

5. The shooter has been charged with murder & attempted murder

Good.

[Deep13]

10. Theft of property is not a defense to homicide.

Neither is trespassing.

[wicket]

17. Right on

:thumbsup:

[Deep13]

19. Not just my opinion. It's law in Ohio.

Deadly force may only be used to defend life and limb. Ohio is one of a minority of states that requires a potential victim of felonious assault to exhaust all possibility of escape (except in ones own home) before shooting. Frankly, I think that is too much of a burden to put on an assault victim. Nevertheless, even in a stand-your-ground state, deadly force would not be justified in this situation.

[krispos42]

70. What is the law regarding fleeing felons?

Just curious, but...

If the kids did wave guns at the caretaker while stealing the bale of hay, does the caretaker have the legal right to try to prevent a pair of armed robbers from escaping?

In other words, is robbing a hay bale at gunpoint a violent felony? Can the caretaker reasonably claim that allowing the armed robbers to escape posed a sustantial threat to the community at large?

I don't know, so if you have any informed thoughts on the topic I think they would be useful to the thread.

[YankmeCrankme]

107. You're assuming they are felons. Why?

Did the caretaker have this valuable information before shooting? Was there an arrest, trial, conviction of a felony between the time he saw them and he shot?

[Deep13]

113. Robbery is a felony.

Taking something from ones control by force is robbery. Obviously the law relies on the fact of the robbery and not on a legal conviction for self defense purposes.

[YankmeCrankme]

173. Ah, there wasn't a trial or conviction and, anyway, I don't believe

stealing a <$100 bale of hay constitutes a felony charge.

[Deep13]

175. Robbery (not merely theft) is always a felony.

It may also constitute statutory burglary which has a broader definition than Common Law burglary. The presence of firearms in the possession of the thieves also makes it a felony.

[krispos42]

143. Robbing at gunpoint

Obvious the normal processes of law did not take place.

I was asking if it was a felony. The definition of "felony" in Ohio may be dependent on the value of the item being stolen. If this is true, then stealing a $5 bale of hay doesn't qualify.

On the other hand, any robbery with a gun might automatically be a felony, by law.

This is what I'm trying to find out.

[YankmeCrankme]

177. Won't know until the trial whether the jury/judge believes that

they attempted to steal the bay of hay at gunpoint. One side seems to say no, the other yes. But, back to your assertion that shooting at fleeing felons is ok, they weren't fleeing felons so no reason to shoot at them for that and the fact that he scared them off prevented them from absconding with his property so no reason to shoot then, either.

Yes, they were attempting to make off with a bale of hay they didn't own, for whatever reason, and I'm sure if caught (maybe getting their license number would have helped instead of trying to hit the truck with a bullet) they would have gotten a more appropriate punishment then death. And if they didn't get caught, I would like to think they would have learned a valuable lesson most of us who end of doing stupid things when that age learn on our path to maturity.

[krispos42]

183. It is not my "assertion" that shooting felons is okay

I was trying to find out if Ohio laws on citizen's arrest and/or lethal force use allowed lethal force.

I was also trying to find out if the use of a firearm to rob is automatically a felony, regardless of value of the stolem items.

I agree that death for stealing a bale of hay in and of itself is not an appropriate punishment. A licence plate and a call to the sheriff whould have done nicely.

[YankmeCrankme]

185. Sorry for misinterpeting your earlier post :) NT

[krispos42]

187. No problem!

:-)

Some people argue that way, so I wasn't sure if you were unclear or lookin' for a fight! :-)

:hi:

[Deep13]

112. Deadly force may only be used to prevent an imminent, ...

...deadly threat to a human being. (Firearms are always deadly force.) If the trespasser is leaving, there is no threat.

If it really was a robbery at gunpoint, then there is an immediate threat of deadly force and the victim of the robbery is justified in shooting UNLESS he can escape without shooting. (That last part is the retreat rule.)

[slackmaster]

82. At least not in Ohio

It is in Texas, at least at night.

[Deep13]

114. I'm guessing that the law there assumes...

...that someone present under those circumstances is there to threaten ones life.

[slackmaster]

117. It's based on a presumption that a nocturnal intruder is a cattle rustler or horse thief

The reasoning being that stealing one's livelihood is tantamount to stealing a chunk of one's life.

[Chulanowa]

6. How many arms did these kids have?

Are they stealing a bale of hay or are they waving their guns? Can't do both at the same time.

"It was an accident"? This dude works at a shooting range an doesn't know that you can't call it an accident when you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger? What, dumbfuck, were you thinking a little flag saying "bang!" would pop out the end?

This is why the "right to bear arms" group makes me roll my eyes. Here we have the kind of person who obviously thinks shooting at someone is the first course of action. I also have to wonder, if they WERE doing as he says and waving their weapons... What does he expect? He fires off a shot, the shooting range is closed, and he thinks these guys aren't gonna go for their own guns to protect themselves?

Way to instigate an easily avoidable situation, and cause the death of a kid over a ten dollar stack of grass.

[karlrschneider]

11. Darn right, what's a little stealing among friends?

They should have been given merit badges.

[Chulanowa]

24. And the "hard of reading" crowd comes out to play

If I am to take your post at face value, which is probably all it's worth, you're stating that a bale of hay is, in fact, worth another human being's life. After all, I did not give any sort of praise to these two yutzes, but you still feel the need to come to the defense of Itchy McTriggerfinger with your overblown and underwhelming attempt at sarcasm.

So, let me ask you. Is deadly force an acceptable response to a misdemeanor offense in your parts? Even cops tend to not think so - and I live near Portland OR, so you know that's saying something. Had the hero of our tale (Well, your hero) called the cops instead of blasting away, well, he might not be facing two felony charges and we'd have one more kid running around Ohio

'Course he probably wouldn't have gotten his bale of hay back that way, which is, apparently in your view, the most important detail of this story. According to the internet hay exchange website ( http://www.hayexchange.com/alfalfa_report.htm if you're truly curious) the price for a bale of hay in Ohio is about six bucks and nineteen cents. Thank you, now I can fully appreciate why Itchy decided to open fire on these two motherfuckers what was stealing his six-dollar stack of dead weeds. I hope you make sure to write to him every day he has to sit in his cell, reminding him that it was totally worth it.

[karlrschneider]

33. The bottom line is pretty fucking simple: If they hadn't been stealing, they

wouldn't have been shot.
FOAD

[1monster]

38. And, of course, we only have his word for that too... There was no mention

in the story that the young man who was not shot admitted to stealing the bale of hay...

[YankmeCrankme]

64. Since when is stealing a capital offense? nt

[DrunkenMaster]

65. Damn Right!

Shooting a kid in the back is a reasonable response to the theft of a five dollar hay bale! Anyone who questions this should just fuck off and die (just like you wrote in your adorable little abbreviation. I'm sure you had the courage to write the whole thing, you just wanted to save time, right? Because if there is one thing a man who advocates shooting kids in the back doesn't lack it is COURAGE.), because, WE, Mr KarlSchneider, YOU and I are MEN. MANLY MEN who kill those who do wrong!

It is obvious that you, like me, get a little chubby whenever we think about stroking our guns and putting a few slugs into the back of some punk kids. This would be a better nation if everyone believed the same thing we do, Mr. Karlschneider.

Now your critics may call you a limpdicked coward for supporting such a murder. They may call you pathetic and sad. But not me, Karl. I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

[Swede]

67. I think KarlSchneider is just itching to use his popgun on someone.

But you know,he only loves guns cause he likes to shot tincans and stuff.

[Deep13]

115. If they had firearms in their possession, it is a felony. n/t

[YankmeCrankme]

178. IF they had. That's for a judge/jury to decide...not the caretaker. NT

[Deep13]

188. You misunderstand the point.

We are talking about self defense here. If the robbery victim reasonably believed that there was an imminent danger to his life and he could not safely retreat, then he is justified in shooting.

Obviously a crime victim is not required to wait for a verdict to see whether or not the robber intends to murder him. Besides, an acquittal proves nothing, only that evidence of guilt was not beyond reasonable doubt.

So, yes, it is up to the caretaker to decide.

[YankmeCrankme]

193. Except in this case they were fleeing in a truck a quarter of a mile away

wasn't in imminent danger and could safely retreat.

[Deep13]

194. Then he's guilty of murder.

I was speaking hypothetically in the previous post. I think I posted elsewhere on this thread that it sounded like he shot without justification.

[YankmeCrankme]

198. Fair enough

It just seems many people approved of what this man did and it didn't matter the circumstances.

[Deep13]

16. Ohio follows the retreat rule.

Unless cornered in ones own residence, a person may use deadly force only as a last restort. If this guy could have defused the situtation simply by walking away, he's guilty. Now, try convincing a rural jury he does not have a right to shoot trespassers.

[Squatch]

46. They had 4

2 kids, times 2 arms a piece, equals 4 arms.

[1monster]

87. Where did you get that info? It wasn't in the article which said only that

the boys had unloaded weapons under the seat.

[Squatch]

132. I just had to rely on my rudimentary understanding of math and biology.

[Kingshakabobo]

136. He's being cute. Two "arms" as in legs and arms. n/t

[1monster]

140. Ahh... Okay. got it. maybe a little slow, but I'll blame that on the red tide and a cold. nt

[Momgonepostal]

8. How much is one bale of hay worth, anyway? nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Apparently the life of one teenage boy.

I'm glad we have that particular economic question answered.

:cry:

[Kingshakabobo]

13. Four dollars - according to the kids mother.

""""Kennedy's mother said that she sent Whisman $4 to pay for the allegedly stolen hay, and now she wants the suspect to pay with his life. "I want my son back. I know that's impossible but I hurt so bad," Bonnie Hay, Kennedy's mother, said.""""

[cornermouse]

21. Around here, its about $2.50.

[tuckessee]

27. Well, with the late frost & drought hay is worth a fortune just south of Ohio

Only problem is it can't be found anywhere at any price.

Small scale livestock holders are selling their cattle & horses because they can't be fed them.

[soothsayer]

51. yup, gonna' be a tough winter her in VA, too

[doodadem]

34. Decent hay in Calif. is up to $15 a bale

Of course, our bales here weigh 100-120 pounds. When we left Cincinnati, timothy hay there was around $6 a bale, but they only put up 50 pound bales.

Bales of hay on shooting or archery ranges aren't good for much other than shooting at. They're allowed to sit out in the weather and mold. I would assume since the range was closed, these kids were going to take a bale and go play somewhere else.

Sorry, but I have a different take on the guns and trespassing dispute. We've been fighting with our idiot neighbors for the past 3 years, both at home and in court. They have taken part of our land, harassed the hell out of us, killed our animals, assaulted us, destroyed fencing to the tune of over 10K (a felony), destroyed landscaping, allowed their trespassing cattle to injure me, on and on and on. We go back to court again the end of this week. The police and the district atty. just throw up their hands. We're drowning in legal fees. We're stressed out to the max. Do these people deserve to be shot?

[Wcross]

44. Round bales in the Southeast- 65 bucks!!!!!!!!!

We are suffering from an "exceptional" drought. My hayfield only yielded half what it does normally. They are having to truck in hay from the Midwest.

[renate]

78. OT, but good luck with your case

"Idiot" neighbors is a bit understated.

I really am sorry you've been dealing with this for three whole years... I can't imagine the stress.

Good luck and :hug:

[Kingshakabobo]

9. Isn't this a gun masturbator's wet dream? To kill someone for stealing?...

...or kill someone for "tresspassin on my prop-a-tey."

[krispos42]

63. Um, no

But thanks for not being burdened by facts or excessive thinking.

[Kingshakabobo]

LOL. Thanks for not reading the thread before you run your mouth.

[krispos42]

80. I was just following your example

is this the point where you tell me to go fondle my shiny metal penis?

[Kingshakabobo]

108. He can't talk. He has his hands full,

[ProfessorGAC]

81. Are You A Gun Masturbator?

If not, how would you know the answer?

You wouldn't be tempted to deny the existence of true gun nuts, would you? Not every gun owner is a gun nut, but in every group of enthusiasts (about anything) some of them are flat out crackers.

That's who the poster was talking about. Are you one of them?
The Professor

[devilgrrl]

14. Doh!

:blush:

[Wcross]

22. Did you read the whole story?????? n/t

[devilgrrl]

31. Okay...

one of the kids mentioned that their guns were out of sight and that they didn't point at the shooter.... It's still hair-trigger bullshit and totally unnecessary. My :sarcasm: remains.

[Wcross]

39. True. But I just wanted to point out there are conflicting stories.

For the record I don't believe the account provided by the guy who killed the kid. I don't always trust news reports for the "facts" because the media doesn't have a great reputation in that area.

[slor]

15. Did it not occur to Whisman to simply shoot...

a mental picture of the license plate?

[Wcross]

20. Seems like conflicting stories.

If anyone bothered to read the whole story..........

"The shooter, Eric Whisman was one of the first people to call 911 for help.

"I'm the one that did it, it was an accident…" he told the dispatcher. "They pointed a gun at me and I was shooting at their truck to scare them and I accidentally hit one of them."

"They was over there stealing hay and pointing a gun at me," Whisman continues on the call. "I shot up in the air to scare them… and they just kept pointing the gun. I shot at the bed of the truck, I wasn't trying to nobody and I hit one of them."

Fyffe, Kennedy's friend, said that they had unloaded guns underneath the seat of the truck but they never pointed a gun at Whisman."

It sounds like we have two different stories which will have to be sorted out in court. I tend to NOT believe the shooters story due to the fact the kid was shot in the back while inside the pickup truck. They might have had guns out at one point in the incident, they may have even pointed them at the shooter but there was NO need to fire when the two kids were leaving. It is extremely hard to tell which story is right based on a news report.

It would be justifiable if the kid were pointing a firearm at the shooter.

[1monster]

28. Serious contradiction in Whisman's story:

"I'm the one that did it, it was an accident…" he told the dispatcher. "They pointed a gun at me and I was shooting at their truck to scare them and I accidentally hit one of them."

"They was over there stealing hay and pointing a gun at me," Whisman continues on the call. "I shot up in the air to scare them… and they just kept pointing the gun. I shot at the bed of the truck, I wasn't trying to nobody and I hit one of them."

If they were "over there stealing hay and pointing a gun at" him, how in the heck was he able to shoot the kid in the back through the seat of the truck???

As someone above stated, it must have been one hell of a slow bullet, or the kid had supernatural speed movement abilities which allowed him to drop the gun under the seat and jump into the driver's seat after the shot was fired, but before it hit the seat. :eyes:

[Wcross]

29. As I said, I doubt his story but I also find this part odd.....

"I'm the one that did it, it was an accident…"

An accident? You fired a bullet at the kid and it hit the kid. How is this an accident?

[Kingshakabobo]

35. His story has the smell of someone who knows he f-cked up - big time.

[Wcross]

36. Yes, it does smell. n/t

[TX-RAT]

30. The kid that got shot may have already been sitting.

Maybe it was the other kid that was waving the gun? Right now, nobody knows. We'll see after the investigation.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Somebody call Arlen Specter STAT!

[AZ Criminal JD]

72. You are forgetting there were two of them

One of them, the driver, could have stolen the hay and hopped into the drivers seat while his friend was aiming at Whisman. As they drove off he could have been aiming at Whisman when he shot at the truck and hit the driver in the back. I would be happy to take this case to a jury in Alabama.

[Deep13]

37. Pretty hard to claim the kid was a mortal threat if he was driving away. nt

[TX-RAT]

41. Where did i say he shot while they were driving away?

[tuckessee]

42. Not necessarily.

Just because a vehicle is travelling in one direction it doesn't mean someone in that vehicle could not discharge a firearm in the completely opposite direction.

[krispos42]

73. Were both kids in the cab of the truck?

If one was in the bed, this could change the dynamic if other facts come to light.


I think this really depends on whether or not the kids were pointing guns at the caretaker.

[aikoaiko]

45. Shooting at a theif driving away -- bad; shooting at a thief pointing a gun at you -- justifiable

We'll have to wait for the facts of this mess. The article is not very clear in details. Its not really clear who was doing what. Warning shots are not particularly justifiable either.

[mvccd1000]

48. Agree 100%.

This article did not do a very good job of laying out the situation. If the criminals' guns had really stayed hidden under the seat, how did the caretaker know they had them? I would guess they were out in plain sight at one point.

Warning shot? I was always taught to never pull a gun until it's time to use it, and the ONLY time to use it is when you need to stop a deadly threat. I completely disagree with warning shots.

Both sides screwed this one up big time, but it all started with a theft. If the kids hadn't broken the law, we'd have nothing to discuss here (except the price of hay this year). :)

[Swede]

54. Here's an update.

According to the Scioto County Sheriff, Kennedy and another boy had stopped at some property along the road in an attempt to steal a bail of hay to use with target practice.

Investigators say Whisman saw the boys and fired a warning shot. They say the boys dropped the hay and took off in their pick-up.

The sheriff say Whisman then fired another shot at the truck which was about 1/4 mile down the road. That bullet struck Kennedy in the back.



http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/10540322.html

[Solon]

55. Sounds like murder to me...

Seriously, what the fuck was his excuse for firing at people who were driving away from a quarter a mile away?

[aikoaiko]

58. He probably thought he was just going to put a hole in the bed of their truck and scare them

Of course, we'll never know what was in his thoughts at the time.

If the facts are what the paper described, Wiseman, the shooter, did a very stupid, criminal thing that also led to the direct death of the thieving boy.

The charges could very well stick at 2nd degree murder.

eta: His only defense is say that the passenger kid was leaning out the window shooting at him first.

[Solon]

59. You would think that someone who is familiar with guns would know that there are no...

"warning shots" with a loaded weapon. You shoot to kill, period, especially when firing AT someone, guns are NOT toys dammit! This guy should have known better.

[aikoaiko]

60. Totally agree with you.

[qdemn7]

145. You DO NOT "Shoot to Kill"

If you know as much about firearms as you claim, then you ought to know better than making such a statement.

You DO NOT shoot to warn.
You DO NOT shoot to wound.
You DO NOT shoot to kill.
You shoot to STOP.

If you are justified in using deadly force, then you are only justified until the threat is terminated. This means until the person(s) threatening, surrenders, retreats or is down and no longer able to attack.

[NashVegas]

110. If That ...

Should we assume the tail-gate was down (or replaced by a net)?

It's kind of hard to expect the bullet would go though a truck's tailgate AND cab.

[Solon]

111. On the contrary, unless he was firing with a handgun, or a .22 rifle...

the bullet of practically any greater caliber would be expected to go through most vehicles unless they hit a "snag" such as locking mechanisms. Trucks and Cars aren't bulletproof. If you have ever taken apart the panels of cars or trucks, they are mostly empty space with thin sheets of sheet metal, fiberglass, or even plastic, that serve as the panels themselves. They can be expected to alter the course of a bullet, but not stop it entirely, or even reduce its lethal force by any great amount.

[aikoaiko]

116. Well, most center-fire rifle cartridges could go through both easily.

See the box of truth website for a similar discussion (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot4.htm). Centerfire rifle rounds can go through a lot of metal.

But then again, its possible the shooter was slightly elevated and trying to shoot down into the bed of the truck where his "miss" actually hit the back of the cab.

[Kingshakabobo]

126. If you watch the video in the OP you will see the bullet struck....

......just below the back window. That position appears to be ABOVE the bed of the pickup.

The fucker had a scope and he knew where he was aiming.

[karlrschneider]

130. there was no mention of a scope. Why are you lying about this?

:wtf:

[Kingshakabobo]

135. Hey, just because you are ignorant of the facts, that doesn't make other people liars.

Tell ya what - why don't you get off your fat ass and mosey over to post #54 (it's been there all day while you have been running your mouth) and watch the video.

It has pretty pictures and video of the truck AND the SCOPED rifle.

[wicket]

159. Great info, thanks for posting that

n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

186. No problem. Do you hear those crickets chirping from that other poster? n/t

[wicket]

191. I'm hearing A LOT of crickets on this thread

;)

[Xithras]

62. The first shot was fine. The second was murder.

I live out in the boonies, and I've fired shots in the air to scare off intruders myself. Nothing wrong with that. Firing AT a person while they're FLEEING is murder, and the fact that they weren't even on his property anymore makes it completely indefensible.

I hope the guy goes to prison for a LONG time.

[Solon]

68. Nothing wrong with that?

What are you, nuts, people have been KILLED by bullets that flew through the air on a ballistic trajectory that others fired either as warning shots or just being assholes. I cannot believe that someone would actually think its OK to fire a loaded weapon in such a manner that the bullet in question can travel for well over a mile before it hits something.

[KurtNYC]

76. True enough

and shooting into the ground makes the same amount of noise.

The cops in Los Angeles park under overpasses just before midnight on New Year's Eve to avoid the falling bullets.

[Solon]

79. I just get pissed of at people that carry no respect for the lethality of firearms and...

use them as if they were fucking toys. They are NOT toys, they are lethal weapons, anyone who doesn't realize this should be allowed to touch them. Think about it, this poster bragged about endangering EVERY SINGLE one of his neighbors, and sees nothing wrong with it. How fucking stupid is that?

[Xithras]

118. Read my post again, I live in the boonies.

If you drew a cirle of about 3 miles around my house, it would encompass about 75 residents, about 3000 cows, and a half billion stalks of corn. It's another mile or two until you hit the edge of the city, well out of range on any hand carried firearm.

Besides, I probably should have clarified that I defend my home with a SHOTGUN. Birdshot coming down in a ballistic trajectory won't kill anyone (terminal velocity is too low).

Would you prefer that I shoot AT tresspassers?

[Solon]

123. Living in the boonies isn't a defense, using a shotgun might, as long as you don't...

fire rifled slugs into the air. Its the spin of the bullets from rifles that keeps them on a ballistic trajectory, shotguns generally don't work that way, excepting rifled slugs(or rarer, rifled barrels). I once did a calculation, based on a 30.06 cartridge, fired from a rifle at anywhere between a 45-60 degree angle, taking into account muzzle velocity, air resistance, and gravity, could have an effective killing range of nearly 5 miles. I could dig up the equations, but they are buried somewhere, its one of those things you get curious about, in my case, after watching a Mythbusters episode on this very scenario. Of course, it was only accurate where there is very little noticeable wind, which can affect the trajectory and range. The fact of the matter is that firing rifled rounds into the air is dangerous, period.

[Solon]

77. In addition to that, you commit a felony every time you use the gun as you described...

According to California law, firing a gun into the air is punishable by 3 years in prison and if you kill someone in the process, you will be charged with murder.

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

[Xithras]

119. Only illegal in urban areas. I don't live in an urban (or even suburban) area.

Just me, the cows, and a handful of neighbors...and those neighbors are VERY spread out.

To illustrate my point, I actually have my OWN range behind my house. When I feel like doing some target shooting, I just grab my rifle, walk out my back door, and do it. In town, that would be a felony. Where I live, only two or three neighbors can hear it, and none are inclined to complain about it (they do the same thing). It's perfectly legal out here.

We did have someone build a McMansion a mile or so up the road from me who DID complain about the gunfire a couple of years ago. As the sheriff's deputy explained to him, hearing gunfire every now and then is just a part of life in the countryside. There are no laws against it.

[Solon]

124. As far as I can tell, there is no exceptions for rural areas...

· Shooting a gun into the air is a felony. You will spend up to one year in prison if you are caught.

· If you're arrested for shooting a gun into the air, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

· If a stray bullet from your gun should kill someone, you will be arrested and charged with murder.

· People involved in celebrating the holidays by shooting their guns do not realize the danger posed by their actions.

· A bullet fired into the air can climb up to two miles. When it falls back to earth, it can reach a speed of 300 to 700 feet per second.

· If you ever see someone fire a gun into the air, call law enforcement authorities.

· Celebrate the holidays safely and responsibly. Don't fire guns into the air.

http://www.mymotherlode.com/News/article/kvml/news7969

The focus for law enforcement may be on urban and suburban areas, but that doesn't mean, if you fire a rifle into the air in the boonies, as you put it, is legal, its not safe. The only reason for the focus on more population dense areas is because it increases the chances that a bullet will actually hit a person, that doesn't mean either you or your neighbors are somehow magically immune from getting hit.

[Xithras]

134. Actually, there IS no specific law against it.

The police and the author of that article are slightly misrepresenting the actual law. Let's start off with one basic fact: There is no law in California that specifically lays out penalties for shooting a gun into the air. That said, California DOES have a felony crime called "Negligent Discharge of a Firearm", which is what most revelers are prosecuted under (http://santamonicapd.org/press_info/PressReleases/2005/PressRelease-2005-1229-NewYearsEve.htm). It also occasionally merits a second charge of "Reckless Endangerment", depending on where you are.

To be prosecuted under the law, a prosecutor would have to show both gross negligence (a legal term with a specific definition) AND that actual human lives were put at risk. This is an easy sell in cities, but out in the country? Not so simple. By simply ensuring that the weapon is pointed in the direction of nearby empty fields, the gross negligence requirement is nullified and the crime is eliminated. Unless you're knowingly discharging in the direction of peoples homes, firing into the air in rural areas is LEGAL.

And, for what it's worth, I've had plenty of Stanislaus County deputies on my property over the years, and none have ever said anything against the practice. It's done pretty routinely to scare off feral dog packs, gas thieves, and other trespassers. In an area with a 30+ minute police response time on weekends, the police themselves have pointed out that we have to be our own first line of defense around here.

It's a concern in urban areas because a bullet fired into the air is almost guaranteed to fall back to the ground in an inhabited area. Where I live, it would be damned hard to hit someone elses home on purpose, much less accidentally.

[Solon]

137. I stand corrected then(after an exhaustive search on Google)...

However, just a note, I do view firing rifles into the air a reckless use of such weapons, regardless of location of the shooter. I was taught to always be sure of what I was aiming at, and the bullets in question will travel farther than your line of sight.

[krispos42]

66. Well, if that's true, it's some form of homicide

Stupid, stupid caretaker. Stupid, stupid death.

[slackmaster]

84. Sounds like an inappropriate use of deadly force

Unless the kid threatened the shooter, the shooter is a murderer.

That said, you'd think a kid with half a brain would pick a less dangerous place to steal stuff.

[TX-RAT]

121. Unless the kid threatened the shooter

That's the kicker, he said they pointed a weapon, and their just happen to be 2 in the vehicle? Hopefully the courts will straighten this out.

[Vinca]

98. How stupid must someone be to use deadly force over a lousy

bale of hay. The dead kid's family is going to own the shooting range.

[lonestarnot]

150. Bizzaro world.

[Zookeeper]

171. If the hay was so dear to the owner, why didn't he write down...

the license plate number on the kid's truck and CALL THE POLICE, instead of shooting at the vehicle as it drove away?!

There is no justification for this killing, based on the information we have. It just makes me sick.

Yes, stealing is wrong, but this kid was executed without due process.

[opihimoimoi]

176. Sometime Bale Napping can have deadly consequences...poor kid...all he had to do was ask....