17y/o unarmed girl shot in the head, no charges will be filed due to Alabama's Stand Your Ground.

[moobu2]

Summer moody probably wont survive or else if she does make it, she'll be extremely brain damaged maybe even vegetative. Sad.

BAY MINETTE, Alabama - Baldwin County High School student Summer Moody, 17, may have been partying Sunday at 4 a.m.with three other males, all 17, on Gravine Island when someone among the four decided to burglarize a fish camp.
Inside, three fishermen were asleep among the many camps, some with only a roof, some with walls. Startled by the attempted break-in, two men fired rifles in the darkness at the intruders, according to Sheriff Huey “Hoss” Mack, afer a briefing with investigators Monday morning.
One shot hit Moody in the head. She was 15- to 30-feet from the dwelling. She was listed in critical condition Monday at the University of South Alabama Medical Center.
Investigators are not sure at this time which rifle delivered the blow or the exact location of the juveniles. Mack said the motive appears to be burglary, and that preliminary evidence indicates the males had broken into at least two other dwellings on the remote island.

http://tinyurl.com/7lokzjd

Summer Moody was supposed to be sleeping over at a girlfriend's house in Bay Minette on Saturday night. She texted her mom at midnight about plans to swim in the creek the next day.

Her mother told News 5 she was surprised to say the least when authorities called her at four in the morning to say her daughter had been shot in the head - fifteen miles away from Bay Minette on Gravine Island.

"Until Summer can tell us what happened, then we wont know why she was there," said her Pastor, Matthew Kelly.

Those who know Summer describe her as a good kid, a star volleyball player for Baldwin County High School. She graduated in December, and planned to walk in May. Summer Moody was working as a hostess at Lambert's restaurant, hoping to one day study cosmetology.

"She was a good student," said Baldwin County School Spokesperson Terry Wilhite. "She was on her game, not only on the court, but on the academic field as well."

http://tinyurl.com/7ykryld

[Meiko]

1. I am thinking that the SYG/Castle Doctrine does not apply

They fired rifles into the darkness without even seeing their target.If you are saying the reason they fired is because they felt they would be covered under SYG that's some pretty thin ice for shooting someone. I wouldn't want to go to court with this one.

[jtuck004]

5. Actually they fired at intruders that had broken down the door of their cabin

while they were asleep, who chose to break in while it was dark, and shot when they were startled\threatened, not because of SYG. There is speculation that the law will cover them, but there is no official decision yet that I can find. But in a remote location, no law enforcement around, that's just asking to get shot, SYG or no SYG.

It doesn't say exactly, but it sounds like they shot from inside, toward the noise, and the bullet went through the house and into the yard. If that's the case they shouldn't be prosecuted, though if she dies I would expect the burglars that caused this to be prosecuted for her murder. Hope so, anyway.

Once they got control they loaded her into a boat, it appears, and tried to get medical attention.

It also says the guys she was with are suspected of other burglaries among the fishing shacks in the area.

Tragic situation all around.

[pnwmom]

12. . The police didn't say they shot because they were startled or threatened,

or that they shot from inside the house. The men "chased the kids by foot." From the link:

"But investigators paint a different picture of the 17-year-old. They say Moody and three other juveniles were burglarizing a fish camp on the island. They were caught by three men from Mobile who chased the kids by foot. One of them pulled a gun and fired. Moody was hit in the back of the head."

[jtuck004]

34. Startled by the attempted break-in, two men fired rifles in the darkness at the intruders...

I guess it depends on which version one reads....

In one a single shot, in another two, in one version they chased, in another it sounds like they shot from inside, one version sounds like a pistol was used, in another two rifles. I'm a lot less forgiving of shooters who leave their safety to pursue, but being burglarized by strangers in the dark doesn't leave you a lot of time to decide whether they are armed, out to kill you, or exactly what is happening, but it is clear who created the tragedy.

Regardless of their excuses people need to respect other's property, and the little cowards that decided to commit the crime in the first place need to be held as responsible.

[pnwmom]

39. All we have now is the adults word for it that the teens were breaking in.

For all we know, the kids were just messing around, and the adults, having heard of previous break-ins, got a little paranoid. Ever heard of Trayvon Martin?

And we don't know if the shooters had been drinking, do we? That could have impaired their judgment.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be prejudging. We don't know anything for a fact right now, except that the girl was shot in the back of the head by someone.

Here's something from today:

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/summer-moody-update-ar-3623945/

Attorney Robert Stankowski says the family is frustrated about how Summer is being portrayed in this case, when there is no evidence at this point that she did anything wrong.

"We certainly have a lot of questions involved about whether or not the use of deadly force would have been appropriate under these circumstances. What these men were doing out there when they were firing these shots, whether or not alcohol was involved, whether or not these men put themselves in the zone of danger and created this situation," says attorney Robert Stankowski.

[jtuck004]

74. They weren't just messing around, they are suspected of having committed criminal acts, and.

three have been arrested and charged.

http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Teen-Shooting-Victims-Mom-Talks/1wsP1vx5_ESD2c6p-k_CvQ.cspx
"The Baldwin County Sheriff says Moody and three other teenagers went to Gravine Island by boat on Sunday around 4 a.m. The three teenage boys are now charged with burglary in the third degree.
"The teens broke into at least two different fish hunting camps we believe with the intent to commit theft," said Sheriff Huey Hoss Mack.
The Sheriff says the teens then broke into a third camp. Two men staying there opened fire. A bullet hit Moody in the back of the head.
"It is being alleged that those shots were in a warning type of nature," said Sheriff Mack.
At this time, the District Attorney doesn't plan to file charges against the shooters.

I am troubled by reports that they chased them and then shot. There are reason for such things, especially in remote areas, but that is generally unwise.

On the other hand, if the suspected criminals were committing burglary it would be too much of a stretch to think that she didn't know. Not vilifying her, but there is no reason to resort to minimizing the criminal behavior of the three young men or of her own responsibility.

I am 100% in favor of people in a home defending it with lethal force, because there are evil people in the world, like this. Sometimes such incidents are stopped because of mothers like this. If she has the right, then everyone must.

The lawyer for the family is a paid advocate who might generate great fees by simply telling the family what they want to hear, or by how they shape the public perception. Kinda like Ronald Reagan. That proves nothing.

It is disrespectful to Trayvon to say the circumstances are comparable. He was hunted and pursued because of the paranoia about his skin color. He had done nothing wrong, had a legal right to be where he was, died near or within sight of his front door, perhaps running to get there. Here we have three who have been charged with burglary and a mother dealing with her grief, perhaps casting about to find anything other than her daughter's irresponsible behavior to hang this on, and at least one shooter who may or may not have done anything other than protect themselves.

I have no doubt the kids thought this was relatively innocent. They were wrong.

[pnwmom]

80. You don't know they weren't just messing around. They are only SUSPECTS.

How do you know it wasn't other people who had been doing the burglaries? The facts aren't in yet.

[jtuck004]

84. I don't know, and neither do you. But three were arrested and charged,

and she was with them. The investigation of ignorant and childish behavior getting people shot continues...

[pnwmom]

94. And hopefully the investigation of men without permits shooting a girl in the head continues.

Yup, that's what I said. No permits, according to the defense attorneys.

[PavePusher]

124. No permit required for private property, or rifles, in Alabama, that I can see.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/alabama.pdf

What permit are you refering to ?

[oneshooter]

125. What permits were needed? Fishing license, boat registration,

drivers license?

Or do you mean permits to purchase, own and carry a rifle in Alabama?

Non needed.

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_al.htm

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[pnwmom]

128. The girl's attorney brought up the lack of a gun permit at the press conference.

So I guess we'll be hearing more about this.

[HooptieWagon]

344. Fresh splintered wood around the door jam.

Cabin owner stated door was kicked in, windows broken, screens cut, and several power tools taken. Sherriffs say other cabins had signs of break in. So you are still fabricating lies. Please keep it up, your attempts to deflect blame from the armed burglars is as laughable as Zimmermans defenders.

[pnwmom]

445. That could have happened the night before, or a few days before. And by other burglars.

The owners said they had been having ongoing problems with break-ins. If they have fingerprints, shoe prints, etc. of the teens, that would be evidence against them. But the mere fact that a door was kicked in doesn't prove who did it or when.

[HooptieWagon]

446. And the couples would have heard the day before

And resecured the doors and window. Now YOU cant tell a fresh break in, but the cops can. Which is why the teens were charged.
Keep spinning. The tone of desperation as you franticly grasp straws in defense of a group of armed felons has Zimmerman defender like quality to it. Quite amusing.

[pnwmom]

456. Who said the couples checked all the cabins the day before? They said the only reason they heard

anything this time was because their air-conditioning happened to break down and it was quieter than usual.

I am the opposite of a Zimmerman defender. I don't think any vigilantes should be chasing down "suspicious" 17 year olds and firing in the dark.

[mvccd1000]

2. Felony Murder rule should apply...

... if Alabama has such a law. Her accomplices who decided to commit a felony should be the ones charged with her murder, just as everyone involved in the robbery of a convenience store can be charged with murder if a death results from the crime.

[DiverDave]

3. How about the guy how SHOT her?

Takes an awfully big man to be so scared that as soon as he hears/ see's something, to just blast away.
What ever happened to 'HEY, I GOT A GUN'??
And all you can come up with is that?

Blame the stupid kids, not the IDIOT who peed his pants

[Skittles]

4. paranoid gun nuts are a dime a dozen

[abelenkpe]

20. +1000 nt

[ellisonz]

37. +1,000,000

[rl6214]

97. So are keyboard commandos that like throwing about anti-gun bigotry.

[Starboard Tack]

255. "anti-gun bigotry"? What would that be, exactly?

Do inanimate objects have some kind of rights in your world?

[rl6214]

389. Despite your claims of ignorance, you know exactly what I'm talking about

It's got nothing to do with the object itself but the person in possesion of the object and you know it.

[Starboard Tack]

403. What claims of ignorance are you refering to? You're not very coherent.

Skittles said

paranoid gun nuts are a dime a dozen

and you responded

97. So are keyboard commandos that like throwing about anti-gun bigotry.

I ask you what you mean by "anti-gun bigotry" and you reply

It's got nothing to do with the object itself but the person in possesion of the object and you know it.

So, my question is what object are you referring to? Gun? Keyboard? Both? Obviously, you agree with Skittles, that gun nuts are a dime a dozen, as you don't refute it but want to include in their numbers "keyboard commandos", whoever they may be.

Do you know what bigotry is? You might want to look it up.

[rl6214]

424. Again the claimed ignorance...or maybe it's not just claimed?

[Starboard Tack]

427. I seek clarity and you accuse me of ignorance. LOL

Don't put that dictionary away.

[eqfan592]

137. Welcome to the ignore list. ;)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

139. *trumpets*

*K*

*R*

[Skittles]

142. SEE #141

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

144. no thanks but...

...be safe, never roll alone...

[Skittles]

145. you know I was trained to shoot in the miliary, right?

I HAVE MY OWN BACK....but I am NOT a fucking GUN NUT

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

147. please...

...enlighten me as to relevance of this.

[Skittles]

148. knowing the difference between responsible gun use and gun nuttery

THAT is the relevance

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

151. AFAIC...

...you are due a hearty *thanks* for your service.

If you are implying that the fishermen were irresponsible in their actions, I would have to agree with you. Warning shots are a bad idea often the most dangerous, especially those from a 16"/50.

[Skittles]

152. OK

[cleanhippie]

378. So is knowing the difference between reasonable restrictions and gun grabbery.

[cleanhippie]

377. As was I.

I have my back AND yours....but I am NOT a fucking GUN GRABBER.

[oneshooter]

381. But do you shoot enough since then to keep your"skills" up to par?

[Skittles]

141. aw poor BABY

soooooo SENSITIVE

[cleanhippie]

376. And paranoid gun grabbers as well.

[pnwmom]

13. It was worse than that. The men chased the kids down, according to the police,

and then shot the girl in the back of the head.


"But investigators paint a different picture of the 17-year-old. They say Moody and three other juveniles were burglarizing a fish camp on the island. They were caught by three men from Mobile who chased the kids by foot. One of them pulled a gun and fired. Moody was hit in the back of the head."

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. If this proves to be the case, SYG doesn't apply...

...and that idiot will be facing a felony murder charge if she dies, felony assault if she (hopefully) pulls through.

[HooptieWagon]

213. I kind of doubt the men carded them first.

They saw armed intruders breaking in to a cabin they were caretaking. Since it was dark, they probably didnt know the adult sized males were teens. I cant find fault with them firing warning shots. They probably didnt know the girl was hiding there. And if the girl hadnt been there, committing an armed felony, she wouldnt have been shot.

[pnwmom]

215. No one was breaking into their own camp area, and there is nothing in the Castle Doctrine

or the Stand your ground law that says it's okay to leave your shelter and PURSUE a suspected burglar -- which these shooters apparently did, even climbing into a boat and crossing a "small river" to do so.

All we have so far is some claims -- no proof that the teens were burglarizing anything, and no proof that the girl, in particular, did anything but take a bullet in the back of her head.

You don't know that it's the girl's fault she was shot. It's equally possible (based on the little we know now), that the teens were just goofing around on the property and that three fisherman heard some sounds and -- knowing about past burglaries -- decided to go out and pursue them.

[HooptieWagon]

253. Committing armed burglary = "goofing around"?

My youre really grasping at straws.

[pnwmom]

271. There is no evidence yet that they were committing burglary, much less armed burglary.

Are you part of the prosecution team? In this country, everyone is innocent till proven guilty.

[HooptieWagon]

284. Theres enough evidence to charge them with 1st degree burglary,

which is burglary with a weapon. They werent there eating milk and cookies while singing girl scout songs around the campfire. They were there committing armed felonies.

[pnwmom]

443. Being charged with something isn't equivalent to being found guilty at trial.

That's what the trial is for -- to determine guilt. Until then, everybody involved in this case is innocent.

[gejohnston]

449. you are pronouncing the adults of being

guilty of being drunk in public and being felons in possession without even the hint of evidence or charges.

[pnwmom]

454. No, I'm not.

I'm asking questions about whether drinking was involved, not pronouncing guilt. (I hope the Sheriff did a blood alcohol test on anyone who used a weapon.) I also mentioned that Moody's attorney was questioning whether the adults had permits for their guns.

I never accused any adult of being a "felon in possession." You must have me mixed up with someone else.

[gejohnston]

459. it did come off that way

but since you were ranting about the adults' records, you seemed to assume they had them.
Yeah you mentioned that. I find it odd that Moody's lawyer does not know Alabama gun control laws. The phrase "try his case in the media" come to mind or his is not licensed in Alabama. Since none of them were arrested for violating any gun control law, it seems obvious they were legal in that regard. Their specific acts that night, may or may not be a different matter.

[pnwmom]

461. I guess I spoke too soon. The fishermen do have criminal records.

Are people with cocaine convictions supposed to be allowed to shoot rifles?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002590425#post4

[Starboard Tack]

257. "I cant find fault with them firing warning shots." Really?

What do you think happens to bullets fired in warning shots? Do you think they just vaporize? Or is it fine for them to pass through some kid's head on their way back to earth?

[sarisataka]

258. I am amazed...

I am a, in 100% agreement with you. If they were firing 'warning shots' it should be negligent homicide

[HooptieWagon]

269. Except the teens were armed burglars.

Warning shots showed a degree of restraint, since the law allowed them to use lethal force in defense of their life and property.The kids were armed criminals, I find it astounding all the defenders they have here.

[sarisataka]

282. A warning shot...

is indicating you did not fear for your life. If you did you would have fired at the threat.

Depending on local law, you could argue a warning shot to scare the person off your property. In that case the shot should be into the ground immediately in front of you. Even that is not entirely safe but you would be attempting to minimize and danger. To shoot in the air, or in the general direction of people is negligent. You could hit an unintended target...

NO warning shots... NO NO NO
Shoot or do not shoot, but have a target

[HooptieWagon]

293. Teens had a rifle, and were committing felonies.

I think many people would have shot to kill, and had legal justification to do so. The caretakers showed remarkable restraint.

[sarisataka]

383. Um...

The caretakers showed remarkable restraint.

It seems they unintentionally shot the one person who may not have been involved.
Shoot the one with the rifle

[HooptieWagon]

384. She was there at the cabin during the break in.

Her boyfriend was one of the armed burglars. The law considers an accomplice, since she went there of her own free will and was present during whatever planning took place. Its going to be pretty tough making a case she was completely innocent, but hey, knock yourself out.

[sarisataka]

385. I never said she was completely innocent

The stories and others here paint her as the innocent victim. I think why was she running around with armed burglars at 4a.m. is a very good question.

My point is simply no warning shots. They can have unintended consequences. Point and shout a verbal warning if you wish.
When I point a gun at a person, I have already made the decision to shoot. Their actions may stop that action before it completes, but I have it in my mind where I am placing that bullet.

A warning shot is violating what some call Rule #4: Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

[HooptieWagon]

387. The teens were armed.

It would make sense not to confront them face to face. Yes, under Alabama law the caretakers could have shot to kill. They fired warning shots instead, and apparently one hit the girl by mistake. But she bears the responsibility. If you go around breaking into houses, theres a risk something bad will happen. It did.

[HooptieWagon]

447. Id agree with that.

I wouldnt feel bad if they had shot at the boys and hit them. However, instead they showed restraint, either through compassion or ignorance. One of the bullets hit the hidden girl by mistake.
What cant be ignored, yet is by all the rabid anti gun zealots, is that Summer hung out with the boys all night, reasonable to assume she was present during discussions to burgle cabins. She went to the cabins with the boys. She remained at the cabin during the burglaries. She placed herself in that position. If she hadnt placed herself there, no bullet would have hit her.

[sarisataka]

448. You hit on the point that people would wish away

If these kids had not gone to a place they had no business being at and had not been doing things they should not have, no shot would have been fired...

And if this girl was not in the hospital, she would be charged too.

Too many people look for reasons to absolve the initiator and blame the other side.
A 'reasonable' person would conclude that if three of four were burgling, the fourth had some involvement. Accessory at the least.
It is sad that a such a young person is so severely injured, but just because she does not fit the 'typical' profile of a criminal does not give her a free pass on her actions.

And if she dies, her three companions will justly be charged with murder. It was their actions that precipitated the situation.

[HooptieWagon]

450. Yes, I agree completely!

It appears that some posters have a stereotype criminal pictured in their mind. Summer doesnt fit that profile, so they claim she was an innocent bystander, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Those vigilante advocating posters are every bit as guilty as Zimmerman in deciding a persons guilt or innocence based on whether they fit the profile or not.
And many of those same posters have a zealous anti gun agenda... anyone who fires a gun is automatically guilty of heinous crimes against innocent people. We werent there, we dont know all the details, so it seems prudent to let Baldwin County complete their investigation and file the appropriate charges under Alabama law.

[pnwmom]

444. Wrong. She wasn't an accomplice merely by being in the vicinity. No evidence

has come out that she helped in the planning or participated in any burglary.

[gejohnston]

451. you think the media is going to actually

have all evidence and actually give a shit about the truth? The first is neither the State or defense will let the first happen, and you are naive if you believe the second.

[HooptieWagon]

453. There was a lot of wild speculation by the media in the initial reporting

which is still being repeated here, but its settled down a lot. The most accurate reporting seems to be from ch5 WKRG, and blog.al.com They seem to stick to offical reports and relevent witnesses.
The wildly inaccurate reports some posters here are promoting seem to have their origins at the local FOX station. No surprise there.

[HooptieWagon]

452. Still pushing the dumb blonde defense?

Yes, it COULD have happened your way. Its possible that despite spending all night partying with the boys, she never participated in or overheard plans to burglarize cabins on the island. Yes, its possible she never noticed a rifle being toted around. She also had no idea the boys had left to go to the island, and just teleported herself there by coincidence. Also completely by coincidence, she accidently tresspassed onto the same private property the boys were burglarizing. She must be deaf and blind too, the poor thing, because despite being right next to the cabin, she was completely unaware of the break in the campers heard a half mile away. Yea, thats it, it could have happened that way. Good luck with your Helen Keller defense, Zimmdad, and be prepared for a great deal of ridicule.

[shadowrider]

406. And if they had shot the one with the rifle, anti's would be screaming, "Why didn't he fire

a warning shot?"

Can't win for losing.

[gejohnston]

260. where were you when I needed you?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=25902

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=25933

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=25934

Here is some ummm "anti" ticked off that a guy in Detroit did not fire a warning shot.

[Starboard Tack]

261. What goes up must come down, right?

Maybe a starting pistol for those who want to fire warning shots. I'd probably use my "loud" voice or air horn, which is enough to scare the shit out of anyone.

[gejohnston]

263. instead of a starter pistol,

an M-60 with a blank adapter.

[HooptieWagon]

272. Dont break in to peoples houses, right?

If they hadnt been committing armed burglary, they wouldnt have been shot.

[Starboard Tack]

292. I don't know what this girl was doing.

All I know is she was shot by an idiot who claims he was firing a warning shot. If you believe that, then you understand very little about guns or basic physics.
Warning shots are appropriate when fired at sea, not in populated areas. This was not a warning shot, but a head shot. Think about it.

[gejohnston]

295. this was not a populated area

but I agree otherwise.

[Starboard Tack]

312. Apparently it was populated enough, unless he was aiming at her.

Depending on the rifle and ammo the area could be pretty damned big.

[HooptieWagon]

296. Thats utter bullshit.

First of all, I have a degree in engineering which require 4 semesters of physics with calculus. And I am experienced with firearms, even though I dont own one.
Secondly, we do know why the girl was there, because she made a series of increasingly bad decisions that put her there. She lied to her mom. She was out all night with 3 boys "partying", doing drugs and drinking in teen lingo. They had a rifle. They went to the island to break into the cabins. At any point, she could have said leave me here and not continued. She could have called her parents. She could have called 911 to report a crime in progress. She did not. She was a willing accomplice.
Thirdly, there is no evidence supporting your wild claim that she was targeted with a head shot. Sherriffs report says two warning shots were fired, one struck the hiding girl by accident. Alabama law permitted lethal force in protecting life and property, caretakers appear to have used restraint in not intending to hit the burglars.

It is unfortunate the girl is gravely injured, but it was her poor decisions that placed her there. Decisions that she, not others, bear responsibility for.

[pnwmom]

306. You don't know she was "drinking and doing drugs." There has been absolutely nothing in the press

to support that. But you're fine with libeling the victim who is struggling for her life now.

And you don't know that she didn't ask the boys to take her home. She might have been in the bushes because she did NOT want to be involved in the crime. Do you really not understand that cell phones don't work in every isolated place in the country? How was she supposed to call her parents to get her? When the shooters wanted help for her, they couldn't call for it -- they had to load her in the boat and take her away from the island.

[HooptieWagon]

310. Sherriffs report says they were partying.

I doubt he meant they were cooking s'mores over the campfire and singing girl scout songs. "Partying", in kids lingo means drinking and doing drugs.

If she didnt want to commit the crimes, she could have stayed back at the beach, or not gone to the island in the first place.

Police were summoned to the island by some method. I assume by cell phone. Of course, if you want to argue police were summoned by smoke signals, ill just chaulk it up as another wild fabrication of yours.

[pnwmom]

326. I already explained this to you. The gunmen had to load the girl up in their boat and take her off

the Island because there was no way-- on that isolated Island -- to summon the police or 911 for help. So she couldn't have used any phone to call her parents, either.

Most of the Island is Federal property, so there would be nothing illegal about a simple plan to go hang out there. What would be illegal would be trespassing on private property, as the police allege that they eventually did.

You think the "partying" teens must have been drinking and using drugs? I think it's just as likely that the gunmen (or "gentlemen," as the sheriff would say) -- had been drinking alcohol and using drugs. There they were out at their camping area, drinking, and they suddenly heard noises on the other end of the Island, so they decided it would be a good idea to go all commando-style -- hop into a boat, cross the river, and chase the bandits down, guns blazing.

Aren't you at all curious who the gunmen were? Whether any of those men had records? Whether any of them had been drinking? If any of them did anything that contributed to this horrible tragedy?

[HooptieWagon]

336. More of your fabrications, huh?

Sherriffs report says kids were partying. Sherriffs report says nothing about the men drinking, so thats a lie youre telling.

Gravine Island is upriver a bit from Mobile, probably well in cell range. The island is accessable only by boat. So of course she had to be removed by boat. Whose boat I havent read. Do you have a link to your claim the men removed her? ... Or is this yet another of your wild fabrications?

[pnwmom]

341. I'm not telling a lie, I'm saying that there is a possibility that the gunmen were drinking,

and that that is something the defense attorney also wants investigated.

And I'm not fabricating anything. We have a limited set of facts. You're using them to smear the teens before trial. I'm saying the same set of facts could just as easily condemn the gunmen. It is too early to tell, and we may never know because the sheriff and DA don't seem to be inclined to take this (a case against the shooters) much further.

Here's a link to where it says the shooters loaded the girl into their boat:

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/04/shot_teen_summer_moody_still_a.html

[baldguy]

404. So, teenagers "partying" is now a crime punishable by extralegal summary execution?

[HooptieWagon]

411. It cannot be ignored as one of several increasingly bad decisions she made that night

that resulted in her being shot.

[Starboard Tack]

307. I guess you slept through the lesson on gravity

I'm sure your parenting advice is very sound and nobody is condoning what these kids were up to. The issue here is not about them, it's about so-called hunters firing "warning shots". No such thing as a safe warning shot, except in the open ocean or maybe the desert. If she dies, regardless of Alabama law, this will be a negligent homicide. BTW, I have no issue with hunters, rifles or self defense, just blatant stupidity and negligence.

[HooptieWagon]

311. Alabama law permits a lethal shot.

So your arguement is pointless.

[Starboard Tack]

313. Alabama permits a "lethal shot" against whom?

Cite me the law that permits shooting unarmed girls in the head, or discharging firearms recklessly. Or are you claiming this was fired intentionally by someone who feared the girl was a threat to his life?

[HooptieWagon]

267. Alabama law allowed them to shoot to kill.

They fired warning shots instead. And since the teens were armed, it wouldnt have been prudent to confront them. Warning shots to chase them away seems quite reasonable, under the circumstances.

[pnwmom]

273. Not according to two local criminal defense attorneys who were interviewed in this case.

Alabama law does not allow people to shoot at RETREATING people who are no threat to them. She was shot in the back of the head -- obviously no threat.

The shooters pursued the teens, not the other way around -- as you know.

[HooptieWagon]

280. They werent aiming at her.

And the Alabama law, posted at the bottom of the thread, clearly states lethal force is legal in defense of life AND property. The men fired two warning shots against armed intruders. A restrained response under the circumstances. There is no evidence they were aiming at the girl, or even knew she was there. If she hadnt been an accomplice to armed burglary, she wouldnt have een shot.

[pnwmom]

289. It isn't DEFENSE to shoot people in the back or in the back of the neck.

It isn't DEFENSE to shoot at anyone who is no threat to you.

[HooptieWagon]

298. Alabama law allows it to protect life AND property.

Caretakers showed restraint in not shooting at anyone. Warning shot in response to boys hit girl in hiding. If she hadnt made the decision to be an accomplice to armed burglary, she wouldnt have been hit.

[pnwmom]

302. The Alabama criminal attorneys who were interviewed on TV said that isn't true. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

315. Then they didnt read the law.

Its posted down thread. Seems clear on the point.

[pnwmom]

324. There's nothing in that law that says it's okay to shoot bystanders in the back of the head.

And there's been no evidence produced by the sheriff or DA showing that she had any involvement in any thefts.

What we DO know is that there's no cell service on the Island, so that she couldn't have called for help even if she wanted to go home. And we know most of the Island is Federal property, and that until the teens went onto private property (assuming they did), they were within their rights to be on the Island.

[HooptieWagon]

352. She wasnt a bystander, she was committing armed felonies.

Just because she wasnt holding the gun or kicking in the door doesnt mean she was innocent. The driver and lookouts for bank robbers are just as guilty as the guys who enter. She was there at the scene, therefore she was a participant.

And yes, she was breaking the law just being on the island, she was drinking and using drugs. And we dont even know if the island had a closing time. If so, as many state and national parks do, then they were tresspassing just being on the island.

She went looking for a thrill. Unfortunately she found it in spades. But she bears the responsibility for her actions.

[pnwmom]

360. She wasn't armed. And there's been no evidence showing she was an accomplice.

I was next to a girl in a store once who decided to slip something in her pocket. That didn't make me her accomplice. By your standards, if the store people had caught her, they should have arrested me.

You don't know she was drinking and using drugs. Why do you keep saying that? And she wasn't breaking the law being on Federal property -- which most of the Island is. Since the shooters had to take her off the Island to get medical attention, it isn't even clear where the shooting took place.

The teens do bear responsibility for their actions. But so should the adult shooters, who haven't even been named in the press yet. Why not?

[HooptieWagon]

367. If she commits a felony with others who are armed,

She is considered under law as also being armed. She went to the cabin with the boys, that makes her an accomplice. If she survives, she will also be charged with 1st degree burglary.

Caretakers not charged because nothing uncovered in investigation shows they broke the law. Teens were charged because investigation shows they broke the law. Seems like a simple enough concept.

[gejohnston]

276. warning shots are reasonable only if

in a very rural area, you fire in the ground and you know exactly where the bullet is going to hit the ground.
Never in an urban area
Never fire in the air even out in the sticks. Even as improbable as it is, the possibility still exists of it landing on an innocent human or pet someplace else.
There are no loopholes in the law of gravity.

[Starboard Tack]

279. Where does it say they were armed

and if they were, what kind of warning shot hits the back of a girl's head? Whatever the kids were doing, this is a clear case of negligent aggravated assault with a firearm by the shooter.

[HooptieWagon]

291. Sherriffs report says teens were armed with a rifle.

And the warning shots (2) were fired in response to the boys. The caretakers probably didnt see the girl. If they werent aiming to hit the boys, it doesnt stand to reason that they would deliberately aim at the girl.

[pnwmom]

328. Have you seen the sheriff's report? I wasn't aware one had been released. I'd love to see the names

of the gunmen.

[HooptieWagon]

346. Excerpts are posted within the thread.

Not that Id expect you to read them. Youve deliberately ignored all other evidence thats been posted in your lame attempt at claiming armed burglars are "innocent".

[pnwmom]

351. I repeatedly gave you links when you asked for them. I've seen no link to an actual

sheriff's report, so would you please show me? And you haven't answered -- did the report contain the shooters' names?

[HooptieWagon]

371. Repeatedly? Bwahaha. I only asked once.

I cant cut and paste links via my phone. However, I did tell you that there were excerpts from the sherriffs reports in this thread. You shouldnt have any problem finding them. AFAIK, the entire report hasnt been released. Also, AFAIK the names of the caretakers havent been released. I guess DA might be worried about threats and harassment from hysterical defenders of armed burglars; who, it would appear, expected the caretakers to roll out the red carpet for burglars, serve them tea and scones, and help them carry their loot to the boat.

[HooptieWagon]

374. Sherriffs statements and/or links

Posts OP, 31, 35 (satellite photo/map), 67, 74. Law quoted posts 240, 364, excerpts and links posts 299, 316.

[gejohnston]

294. I'm guessing

if it was a warning shot, the shooter aimed off to the side in the bushes, or in the air at a very high angle.
Personally, don't think it was a warning shot. The cops charged the kids with first degree burglary because one of them was armed.

[HooptieWagon]

300. I havent seen those details.

On ballistics, etc. But warning shots seem very plausible to me. Cabin was unoccupied, probably little of value inside. Caretakers go there to investigate sounds of break in, see armed burglars. Makes sense to fire a warning shot to chase them away, than to confront armed burglars face to face.

[ellisonz]

402. "And since the teens were armed, it wouldnt have been prudent to confront them."

That's a contradiction. If they did not confront them, how would they have known they were armed?

[HooptieWagon]

413. Its rather difficult to conceal a rifle in your pocket.

[pnwmom]

432. The fishermen's own attorney doesn't say anything about being afraid because the teens had weapons.

He says the fishermen shot at the teens to stop them from running away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002585410#post3

[mvccd1000]

22. Oh, you mean...

... the guy who was peacefully snoozing in his fishing shack, studiously NOT out illegally drinking and committing felonies at 4am? Right... why SHOULDN'T we blame the crime victim in this case? He should have known there would be some felons in his midst that morning and carefully prepared his interview questions so he could determine if they posed a threat or not.

If they had happened to be drug smugglers coming through his camp and decided to harm or kill him, at least he could have died honorably, knowing he had not fired in haste.

[frylock]

38. or perhaps the guy who pursued and shot her in the back of the head?

yes, by all means defend yourself, but it turns to OFFENSE the moment someone decides to pursue.

[pnwmom]

43. No, the guys who chased the kids on foot and shot one of them in the back of the head.

And how do you know the adults hadn't been drinking?

From the link at the OP:

"But investigators paint a different picture of the 17-year-old. They say Moody and three other juveniles were burglarizing a fish camp on the island. They were caught by three men from Mobile who chased the kids by foot. One of them pulled a gun and fired. Moody was hit in the back of the head."


Here's something from today:

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/summer-moody-update-ar-3623945/

Attorney Robert Stankowski says the family is frustrated about how Summer is being portrayed in this case, when there is no evidence at this point that she did anything wrong.

"We certainly have a lot of questions involved about whether or not the use of deadly force would have been appropriate under these circumstances. What these men were doing out there when they were firing these shots, whether or not alcohol was involved, whether or not these men put themselves in the zone of danger and created this situation," says attorney Robert Stankowski.

[Brkh]

87. Really?

There is no way I would ever give up my position in MY home to inform someone who is illeagly breaking in that I have a gun. Hello they made the desision to go into someone else's property. They started the chain events which they now have to deal with along with the innocent ppl in the home.

[pnwmom]

156. The shooter wasn't in his home or even in his fishing camp. He followed the teens in a boat.

=http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Teens-Charged-as-Adults-in-Gravine-Island/xOzHljVPvU68nIGBwSDu9Q.cspx

(BALDWIN COUNTY, Ala.) - Three teenage boys are now being charged as adults in connection with burglaries on Gravine Island. Another teenager, Summer Moody, 17, was shot during the incident by someone at a fish camp there.

The whole thing started around 4 a.m. Sunday. Baldwin County Sheriffs Deputies say Scott Byrd, Daniel Parnell and Dillon Tyree, all 17, along with Moody went to Gravine Island and broke into several fish camps there.

Three men on the island heard the teens breaking into one fish camp, deputies say those men had to cross a small river to get to the fish camp where the teens were. They began shooting. Moody was hit in the back of the head. She remains in critical condition at USA Medical Center.

Deputies say Byrd, Tyree and Parnell are now being charged as adults because they had a weapon when they were committing the burglaries.

[krispos42]

365. During the commission of a crime...

...the perps are responsible for all related injuries or deaths. How about we blame the criminals for breaking into occupied buildings instead, hmmm?

[pnwmom]

11. I don't see evidence that they actually committed a felony. The only one who I'm sure did so

is the one who chased her, according to police, and shot her in the back of the head.

[rl6214]

99. The only one who I'm sure did so is the one who chase her

Sure huh? Must be nice to be all seeing and all knowing.

[pnwmom]

100. The only fact we know is that someone shot her in the back of the head.

Everything else is still up for grabs.

[HooptieWagon]

184. Sherriffs say the teens were breaking and entering. Thats a felony.

And sherriffs say one of the teens was armed. They werent innocent.

[pnwmom]

185. Has the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" been repealed?

They are still innocent because they haven't been proven guilty.

OTOH, so is the shooter -- the guy who supposedly heard some noises on the other side of the island, left his campsite, got into a boat, crossed a river, chased the teens on foot, and shot the girl in the back of the head. He's innocent, too -- whoever he is. For some reason, the police aren't naming any of the adults so far.

[HooptieWagon]

189. Innocent until proven guilty applies to a court of law.

Not posters on a message board. We dont know all the facts, but according to the sherriffs report they were committing multiple felonies while armed. And they were old enough to know better.Its too bad they did something so stupid, but that doesnt mean they were innocent. If the yoing woman had been spending the night with a friend, as she told her mom, instead of committing armed burgleries with some boys... well, we wouldnt be having this discussion now, would we?

[pnwmom]

274. If the gunmen hadn't heard some sounds, and decided to cross a river to get to them,

and fired off shots at head level in the darkness when they got to the other side, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[HooptieWagon]

308. Still making shit up, huh?

No mention is made in report of what angle the warning shot was fired at. So you are fabricating that. And your big river, is in fact a small stream next to the caretakers cabin. Its right there in plain sight in satellite photo this thread.At the time the caretakers left their cabin and crossed the stream, they were still just investigating sounds from the other cabin, not persuing the teens. Try sticking to the facts in the sherriffs report rather than wild fabrications attempting to deflect responsibility away from armed burglars. You are sounding like the Zimmerman defenders.

[pnwmom]

354. You're the one sounding like a Zimmerman defender. He's the vigilante, just like

these shooters appear to have been.

The sheriff's deputy on TV said the shooters were "chasing" the teens "on foot." That means they were pursuing them. Try sticking to the facts.

[shadowrider]

407. What happened to your staunch defense of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Seems to me it works one way with you.

[cleanhippie]

379. If the kids had not been drunk and breaking in...

we would not be having this conversation.

[pnwmom]

392. I challenge you to show me a single media report that the teens were drunk.

I haven't seen any reports that they were drinking, period -- though, since THEY weren't the ones who shot someone in the head, I wouldn't care if they were.

I would like to know the drug/alcohol levels of the "gentlemen" shooters, however.

[DonP]

414. It's in the same report you keep citing that the fishermen were probably drunk

How could you miss it?

You keep posting about how the fishermen were probably drinking and impaired but somehow the "teens" partying doesn't indicate any evidence of alcohol or drug use.

I'm sure the report on the "innocent until proven guilty" teens drug and alcohol use is in the same source about the "guilty until proven guilty again and executed" report on the fishermen.

[pnwmom]

417. It's the possible drinking of the shooters that is relevant, not of the teen victim.

You don't get to kill a seventeen year old because she's been drinking.

All my comments about the possible behavior of the shooters were made in the context of the many people here who have been busy condemning the teens before a trial, and don't seem to care that we still don't even know the names of the fisherman, or whether any of them had a criminal record, or were involved in activities that made them act recklessly or impaired their judgment.

The real victim here is the girl, not these men or the stuff they thought they had to run across the island to protect.

[gejohnston]

418. you don't get the context

You don't get to kill a seventeen year old because she's been drinking.

she wasn't shot because she was drinking. Most likely, it was a warning shot gone bad. It is still under investigation.

All my comments about the possible behavior of the shooters were made in the context of the many people here who have been busy condemning the teens before a trial, and don't seem to care that we still don't even know the names of the fisherman, or whether any of them had a criminal record, or were involved in activities that made them act recklessly or impaired their judgment.

Our comments about the kids are based on evidence in the stories. They have been charged with felonies. That is not the same as speculating. We know the fishermen do not have criminal records because they were not arrested and charged for gun possession. What part of Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and Gun Control Act of 1968 don't you get?

The real victim here is the girl, not these men or the stuff they thought they had to run across the island to protect.

We don't even know if the bullet came from any of their guns.

[pnwmom]

431. Here's a link to information from one of the fishermen's attorneys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002585410#post3

[Starboard Tack]

106. If the kids had been armed, maybe.

I don't think we charge pranksters, or unarmed burglars with felony murder. Maybe stupidity, but not murder.

[HooptieWagon]

186. Sherriffs say one of them was armed.

Breaking and entering while armed? I dont think theyd find much sympathy from any jury. Kids do stupid shit, sometimes it blows up in their face.

[caseymoz]

439. Felony Murder is from Common Law

. . . and if you ask me, it's one of the most barbaric holdovers from that age. I'm certain the family would feel no better if prosecutors tried to pin this on somebody other than the shooter. Nor should they.

Perhaps it'll come out that the shooter was innocent, but in the meantime, don't go back to the age of the Divine Right of Kings just to pull out a law that pins the death on a person one who had no criminal intent toward the deceased.

[mvccd1000]

440. And if you ask me...

... it makes a great deal of sense. If you get together with a group of your buddies and decide to go hold up a gas station (or burglarize a fishing camp), and one of the patrons, or an innocent bystander, or even one of your cohorts is killed during the commission of your crime, every one of you who conspired to commit the crime are guilty of causing that death. It's absolutely correct to charge all of you with manslaughter, or murder, or negligent homicide, or whatever charges fit the situation.

[caseymoz]

441. However, statutory and case law says . . .

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 03:30 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . unless the crime is in progress when they shot, Felony Murder cannot apply. At that time, there was no crime in progress. The shooters seem to agree that they did not fire to stop a crime. The crime had already been abandoned.

But back on the topic, the basis of modern criminal law is intent. The key to 14th century law was sin. If you sin, it means that God is frowning on everything else you do. Anything bad that happens due to your sin is your fault, no matter how random the occurrence might have been. So, if you're into second-guessing the mind of God, and if you want to throw us back into a theocracy without really trying, Felony Murder is a good way to start.

If, on the other hand, you want to create another charge for inciting gunfire or initiating a gunfight, whatever, and then add a degree of manslaughter to the criminal who starts it by shooting or through some other felony when an innocent bystander is randomly killed, I'd agree.

But Felony Murder is fucked. It's like running a traffic light and then have a speeding charge added to it, because, of course, you had to have been speeding if you ran the light.

It might seem a subtle difference to you, but I don't like the circumvention of criminal intent Felony Murder entails. Manslaughter, at least takes into account irresponsibility and/or negligence, and gives the proper consideration in sentencing. We don't need to reach back to the Stone Age.

And believe me, in Alabama, if they could hit these alleged burglars with Felony Murder, they would. It's common law, so it's available.

[HooptieWagon]

457. I agree.

If its common law, as the other poster says, then it must have worked pretty well the past 800 years, or we would have abandoned it.

[HooptieWagon]

455. What is barbaric about Felony Murder?

If you dont commit a felony, theres zero chance of being charged with felony murder.

[baldguy]

6. Anotheer innocent victim sacrificed the the gun gods.

This is the ugly side of gun worship fostered by the NRA, the GOP and so-called RKBA advocates.

[SATIRical]

29. Thieves==innocent?

Wow.

[pnwmom]

45. How do we know they were thieves, and not just kids messing around

in a campsite?

We don't have any facts yet, except for the fact that a girl was shot IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

And the police say the men "chased" the kids on foot, before someone shot her.

We also don't know if the men were drinking or not. A bunch of men are out camping and fishing and there's no beer involved? Okay, maybe . . . .

[SATIRical]

59. "The juveniles were charged with third-degree burglary"

We don't know for sure. But the police had enough to charge them and I'm just going by what the article says. If you don't believe the article, then the girl wasn't necessarily shot, there weren't necessarily guns involved, and the camp doesn't necessarily even exist.

[pnwmom]

60. Yes, they were charged, based on what the shooters told them. But it wouldn't

be the first time the police made a mistake.

I hope the police were smart enough to get blood alcohol levels from the shooters.

[SATIRical]

66. Based on what the shooters told them?

What makes you think that? What makes you think that is all the evidence there was?

A girl was shot in the back of the head. Some reports say the shooters chased the kids (so there wouldn't be there in the camp). Why in the world would they just believe the shooters? That makes no sense.

[pnwmom]

71. I agree, it would make no sense for the police or anyone else

to just take the shooters' word for it that the kids were breaking in and the shooters did nothing wrong.

But that's what appears to have happened -- at least with a number of DUers right here.

But you're sure the police wouldn't have just arrested the kids based on what the shooters said? Ever hear of George Zimmerman? The police sure wanted to take him at his word.

[SATIRical]

83. No, it doesn't appear that is what happened

remember, there were three other witnesses besides the girl.

The cops had to weigh all of the evidence. Just as they did in the Zimmerman case, where there was really only one witness left alive. As more evidence came out, they eventually charged him.

In this case, there was apparently enough evidence from the get-go.

[rl6214]

103. When I go camping and fishing I NEVER take along beer.

NEVER but I ALWAYS take along a gun. Never know about bears.

[pnwmom]

157. Do you think most groups of men never take beer? n/t

[rl6214]

166. I don't think "most" groups of anyone ever do anything.

I don't stereotype.

[DiverDave]

92. So Thieves should be SHOT?

Right?
A life for STUFF?

Pretty sick

[pnwmom]

96. Amazing, isn't it? The gun owner as judge, jury, and executioner -- all over some stuff. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

146. I gather you are not a big fan of Castle Doctrine?

Its the law in 44 states

[pnwmom]

158. Not if it means appointing to yourself the power of judge, jury, and executioner

if you decide someone is threatening someone's property.

Do you really think the Castle Doctrine applies here? The shooter's home wasn't invaded. The shooter heard noises on the other side of a river, and got in a boat to follow the sounds -- then came out shooting.


http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Teens-Charged-as-Adults-in-Gravine-Island/xOzHljVPvU68nIGBwSDu9Q.cspx

(BALDWIN COUNTY, Ala.) - Three teenage boys are now being charged as adults in connection with burglaries on Gravine Island. Another teenager, Summer Moody, 17, was shot during the incident by someone at a fish camp there.

The whole thing started around 4 a.m. Sunday. Baldwin County Sheriffs Deputies say Scott Byrd, Daniel Parnell and Dillon Tyree, all 17, along with Moody went to Gravine Island and broke into several fish camps there.

Three men on the island heard the teens breaking into one fish camp, deputies say those men had to cross a small river to get to the fish camp where the teens were. They began shooting. Moody was hit in the back of the head. She remains in critical condition at USA Medical Center.

Deputies say Byrd, Tyree and Parnell are now being charged as adults because they had a weapon when they were committing the burglaries.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

160. Again I was replying to the broad statement, which I read as not limited to the specifics of this

event.

It is also up to 1st degree burglary since they were armed.

There is still a lot more to come out on this...

[pnwmom]

163. "Armed" could mean one of them had a pocket knife.

It also could mean one of them grabbed a gun he found in one of the buildings.

You're right. There's a lot more to come out in this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

167. What I read was that the young people had brought a firearm with them

and that was why the charges were raised to 1st degree burglary.

It will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings on this.

[pnwmom]

168. Yup. And, like I said, I'd like to see some of the adults' names.

Why haven't they been made public?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

171. They will have to be at some point.

[DiverDave]

212. HE WASN'T BEING THREATENED WHEN HE SHOT @ THEM

You people seem to want to twist everything.
How in the world is it right for a kid to be brain dead over STUFF?

That is the question, not the castle doctrine

So YOU believe that its fine to take a life over your fishing pole?
Thats what you are saying

[HooptieWagon]

217. The teens were armed.

That would seem to indicate a threat, since one cant really tell if they are fleeing, or seeking cover to fire. It was dark, the men probably didnt know they were teens, and didnt know the girl was hiding in the underbrush. Their intent was to scare away armed intruders.

[pnwmom]

222. That hasn't been proven. And the "weapon" hasn't even been named.

The girl, in any case, wasn't armed.

The shooters weren't threatened. They left their shelter NOT because they saw armed people, but because they heard some noises. After they crossed the "small river" they purposely pursued the teens. Except for the racial issue, this case is very similar to the Trayvon Martin case. Vigilante justice. Or not.

[HooptieWagon]

250. Sherriffs say teens had a rifle.

It doesnt matter if she was armed or not, her crime partners were, so law considers her as committing armed felonies.

And I fail to see any similarity whatsoever with Trayvon Martin. Trayvon didnt lie to his parents about his whereabouts. Trayvon was not out at 4am doing drugs and drinking. Trayvon was entitled to be where he was. Trayvon wasnt armed. Trayvon wasnt committing felonies.
Summer lied to her pare.ts. She was out at 4am doing drugs and drinking. She and her friends were tresspassing. They were armed. They were committing multiple felonies.
OK, I will grant you that both were 17 years old. Other than that there is no similarity.

[DiverDave]

225. uh-huh, and you know this how?

and he knew this how?

So, you would shoot someone RUNNING away from you?

Why?, for what purpose?

There is NO WAY you can justify shooting FLEEING kids.

Now bring up something else that muddies the waters, that is what you all do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

233. Report in the media about why the charges were raised to 1st degree

As of now, the shooting is being considered accidental and associated with the 4 people doing criminal mischief. The Georgia felony murder rule may kick in for the other three.
.

[HooptieWagon]

252. Sherriffs report says the teens had a gun.

Which is why the charges against them were upgraded from 3rd to 1st degree burglary. Sometimes kids do stupid shit that results in serious injury or death. They were old enough to know better, and bear the responsibility for their actions. If the girl had been spending the night with her friend, as she told her mom, instead of doing drugs, drinking, and committing armed felonies, then she wouldnt have been shot, and we wouldnt be having this conv ersation.

[baldguy]

405. The victim DID NOT have a gun.

And there's no suggestion that she did any drugs or broke into any cabins.

You think that a teenager hanging out with other teenagers is a crime punishable by extralegal summary execution? You're so intent on having the victim pay for her crimes, how about the shooters? Do they bare no responsibility?

Oh, right. THEY were carrying guns. No responsibility required.

[HooptieWagon]

412. Doesnt matter if she was holding a gun.

If she was a participant in the burglaries, and there is zero evidence that she wasnt, then the fact that one of the gang was armed means all the gang is guilty of armed burglary. That is the law, that is why all three boys are charged as adults with 1st degree burglary, and the girl will be also when she recovers. The girl was hanging out with the boys all night. It is reasonable to assume she was present during plans to burglarize the cabins. She was present at the scenes of the burglaries. That makes her guilty of the same charges, just as a lookout for armed bank robbers is also considered guilty of armed robbery even if unarmed and not inside the bank.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

232. You posted a general comment and got a general reply

Based on what I read being said as I post this (wed early AM), the shooting looks to be accidental though associated with the criminal mischief she and 3 others were doing. That may trigger Felony Murder rule for her associated.

Again, based on what I have read so far, I am on the fence about this one. I don't see any innocents or heroes with good judgement.

[SATIRical]

242. Who said that? I certainly didn't.

I simply pointed out that they were charged as thieves. They may be proven innocent, but right now it doesn't appear that way.

On edit: But on a larger philosophical point, if it is a life for "stuff" (which it may or may not have been from the shooters perspective), why do criminals make that decision. Knowing there is a chance they will get shot in robbing someone, why would they make that choice. If they think their life is worth less than stuff, who are you to argue with them?

[baldguy]

107. Please indicate where the story says that the innocent victim was a thief.

The shooters were afraid, so they shot blindly into the dark.

[pnwmom]

173. If the shooters were afraid, why did they leave their own camp,

get in a boat, row it across the river, get out of the boat, and chase the teens down?

Sounds like plain old vigilante justice to me . . . more and more it sounds like another high-profile case.

[baldguy]

226. Their guns were magical talismans protecting them from the demons in the night.

[WinniSkipper]

265. Do you have a link for this?

I haven't seen the "get in their boat" part. I was under the impression they (fisherman) were already on the island to one of the camps.

[pnwmom]

275. Here's a link.

I can't find the one where I saw a reference to a boat, but they crossed a "small river" somehow. So unless they swam it. . . .

http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Teens-Charged-as-Adults-in-Gravine-Island/xOzHljVPvU68nIGBwSDu9Q.cspx

(BALDWIN COUNTY, Ala.) - Three teenage boys are now being charged as adults in connection with burglaries on Gravine Island. Another teenager, Summer Moody, 17, was shot during the incident by someone at a fish camp there.

The whole thing started around 4 a.m. Sunday. Baldwin County Sheriffs Deputies say Scott Byrd, Daniel Parnell and Dillon Tyree, all 17, along with Moody went to Gravine Island and broke into several fish camps there.

Three men on the island heard the teens breaking into one fish camp, deputies say those men had to cross a small river to get to the fish camp where the teens were. They began shooting. Moody was hit in the back of the head. She remains in critical condition at USA Medical Center.

Deputies say Byrd, Tyree and Parnell are now being charged as adults because they had a weapon when they were committing the burglaries.

[SATIRical]

244. Right after you indicate where in the story the teens were innocent

I saw that they were charged as thieves. They may indeed be innocent but right now it doesn't appear that way. The story indicates the opposite.

[DonP]

36. Kicking in doors on other people's property is "innocent" to you?

Interesting interpretation of the law you have.

Here's a hint. Leave other people and their stuff alone and you most likely won't get shot. I'm not sure if that's directly from the NRA or my grandmother, but it's good advice either way.

But some people are already over extending the entire Martin-Zimmerman incident and over reaching by trying to make it look like every shooting involving anyone under 26 is another SYG horror story.

Here's a hint. If you want to exploit it, at least choose incidents where people aren't committing felonies at the time they are shot.

[pnwmom]

42. Chasing down suspected burglars on foot and shooting them in the back of the head

is okay with you?

[DonP]

58. As soon as we know if that actually happened we'll talk - or were you actually there?

If you were there we'd like to hear the details.

Otherwise you're going on a short and poorly written newspaper story that reported what someone said, very possibly one of the "doorkickers" with every reason to try and cover their ass. You're guessing at what happened and automatically making the men in the house broken into the bad guys.

Nothing like a semi informed rush to judgement. Shall we bother with arraignment and a trial, or just get the torches and pitchforks out from the last few weeks and relight them?

Two weeks ago, here in Chicago an 80 year old man shot and killed a 19 year old that broke into his home. No charges were filed against the homeowner. Even in hoplophobic Chicago, he was considered within his rights.

Right now nobody seems to know jack shit for facts in this case, just like in Florida. Not that lack of facts stopped anyone from speculating out their ass.

So let's wait to see what the facts actually are and minimize the risk of at least one or more of us looking really stupid.

If they did "chase them down" it's a crime for the shooter, probably manslaughter or assault.

OTOH if they shot them after they kicked down the door and didn't really "chase them", the "doorkickers" are most likely guilty of felony murder or at minimum B&E, assault and trespass, depending on whether the woman lives.

No matter how you look at it, they weren't "innocent" which by definition means doing nothing wrong.

Forensics will likely tell us what really happened more accurately and honestly than either side of the story.

[pnwmom]

81. Here's an interview with some investigator, where he says the teens were chased.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/16/gravine-island-footchase-turns-violent-ar-3618749/

[baldguy]

108. So, if the person standing next to you commits a crime, you should be punished for it?

Collective punishment is ALWAYS a good idea - in fascist countries.

[gejohnston]

111. they do in France

The asshole driver starts waving a pistol around, and everyone in the car could be going to prison. Unjust and wrong, I agree but France is hardly fascist, unless you are Roma.

“If the evidence points to her involvement, she will be prosecuted,” the source told The Sun, “Anybody involved in the illegal use of a handgun in public is liable to arrest and interrogation.”

If the gun proves to be real, all parties face up to seven years in prison. Even if it’s fake, the passengers in the car could get two years in the clink.

http://news.yahoo.com/pippa-middleton-may-face-jail-time-gun-incident-135203320.html

[baldguy]

119. The only people waiving guns around were the yahoos in the cabin.

And last time I checked Alabama ain't in France, dumbass.

[gejohnston]

123. you missed the point

you said

Collective punishment is ALWAYS a good idea - in fascist countries.

This Brit and other passengers are going to jail because the asshole driver was waving a pistol around in Paris. That is collective punishment. You were implying that there was collective punishment in this Alabama case. This case in Paris is a specific example of collective punishment in a free country unless of course you happen to be Roma, Muslim, Scientology.
Collective punishment ain't in Alabama, but is in France.
Oh yeah, "ain't" isn't a word.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

161. Police are now stating that the young people had a gun with them

No details on what kind and where it was at the time. I do not believe that was available information when you posted.

As for France vs Alabama, the people are nicer in Alabama, even if they still have dry counties.

[pnwmom]

174. I've only heard the word "weapon" used. Have you seen an actual claim of a gun?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

177. Yes...to deal with gators vice armed robbery.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/usatoday/article/39062027?odyssey=mod

7th paragraph:

Baldwin County Sheriff's office spokesman Maj. Anthony Lowery said it is believed the youths had gone to the island to dig for frogs and shoot alligators and had a firearm for that purpose.

[pnwmom]

187. Interesting, thanks. n/t

[rl6214]

101. Good for a laugh as always

NOT. Take a look at your post, this is the ugly side (only side) of an anti-gun zealots bigotry, fostered by who knows what.

[baldguy]

109. You're right - murder is very rarely "funny".

People who believe the gun-worshiper dogma that guns are the first and only solution to every problem leave a whole lot of bodies in their wake.

Not funny at all.

[Lunabelle]

7. Wow, what a loss for her friends and family.

I don't own a gun and don't ever plan to, but if I felt threatened, I would use deadly force. I am a survivor of domestic violence and think that you have a right to defend yourself.

[Callisto32]

8. Burglary, eh?

Sounds like those boys have some murder charges on their hands. (The thieves, not the shooters, not enough detail to know about that.)

[pnwmom]

197. The shooters should be looking at murder charges. What gave them the right,

when they heard suspicious sounds, to leave their own camp, get in a boat, cross a river, chase the teens down and shoot a girl in the back of the head?

I can't believe the attitudes I'm seeing here.

The only FACT we know for sure is that a 17 year old was shot in the back of the head. (In a moral world, that would be awfully hard to justify.)

Everything else is just allegation and supposition.

[Callisto32]

228. Whoa, whoa, whoa...

What attitude?

All I said was that it looks like felony murder for the burglars, and I don't know about the shooters.

If you feel like pulling up the state statute for homicide in the appropriate jurisdiction, and matching all of the elements of that to known facts about the shooters, and eliminating any possible justification defenses; knock yourself out.

I do that stuff for a living, and have no desire to do it here.

Don't put words in my mouth OR attitudes in my heart...

Due Process FTMFW.

[HooptieWagon]

318. Alabama law gives them the right.

And since the teens were armed, on drugs, and committing felonies, any reasonable jury would agree.

[SaltyBro]

9. And why is this guy not being charged with murder?

He shot an innocent girl in the back as she ran away and he walks free?!?

[pnwmom]

10. The article actually says that no charges have been filed . . . yet. The investigation is ongoing.

[HooptieWagon]

52. If she was an accomplice to a felony, she wasnt innocent.

Seems to be two different storys. Will have to wait for truth to emerge. No, she didnt deserve to be shot, but the indication seems to be she and the boys were committing burglerys. Newsflash... committing crimes sometimes blows up in your face.

[pnwmom]

95. The only real fact we know is that she was hit in the back of her head.

For all we know, she and the boys were just chased by a bunch of drunk, gun-wielding, paranoids.

The point is we don't have the facts yet. It could go either way.

[HooptieWagon]

182. Yes, no facts yet.

In fact, we dont know the guys were either drunk, or chasing the kids. Its possible she was just nearby and was hit by a wild shot. We do know she and the boys werent supposed to be there, and possibly were committing burglerys. Even if she didnt go in the cabins, just being there makes her an accomplice.

[pnwmom]

183. She wouldn't be an accomplice unless they were planning to burglarize and she knew that. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

192. She was close enogh to the action to get shot.

She certainly wasnt distancing herself from the crimes. Maybe she was a lookout?

[pnwmom]

195. I was once with a friend in a store and, all of a sudden,

I realized she was about to put something in her pocket (or did -- I can't remember). I was horrified, and I left the store.

But what if she'd been caught right then. Would I have been equally guilty because she was my friend and I was standing right next to her?

1) We don't know that anyone actually was burglarizing anything
2) If they were, we don't know whether it was pre-planned or impulsive
3) Unless it was preplanned and the girl was part of the conspiracy; or she was part of the actions, she isn't guilty.

And above all, she was shot in the back of the head. What gives anyone the right under any doctrine to shoot a non-threatening person in the back of the head?

[ileus]

14. Sounds like she was hanging with the wrong crowd.

stand near the fire and you'll eventually get burned...

[pnwmom]

46. Or maybe the teen crowd was outside fooling around

and a bunch of beer-drinking fishermen, having heard of previous break-ins, just got paranoid.

The point is we don't have the facts yet. Except for the FACT that the girl was shot in the back of the head. No one wanting to claim self-defense shoots someone in the back of the head.

[DonP]

64. You are just a laugh riot!

In the same post!

"The point is we don't have the facts yet."

and

"and a bunch of beer-drinking fishermen, having heard of previous break-ins, just got paranoid." And you know they were drinking how?

Well, should we wait for the facts ... or just go along with your random speculations? If you bend over and twist any more to come up with excuses for the innocent "kids" you'll turn into a pretzel.

You were right the first line - we don't have the facts yet but it might be a good time to stop with the excuses and speculation.

A couple of facts to consider. All fishermen do not drink/get drunk and not all gun owners and users are evil drunks looking for an excuse to shoot "innocent children that are just messing around" at 4AM.

[frylock]

88. your kinda fucking funny yourself..

As soon as we know if that actually happened we'll talk - or were you actually there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117231712#post58

you've already presumed the girl guilty, yet want to chastise others for presuming the shooter guilty. or were you actually there? laugh. riot.

[pnwmom]

98. I don't know they were drinking. I'm saying my possible scenario about the men is just as valid

as what other people have been speculating, about these kids being burglars. We don't know who is at fault because the facts aren't in yet.

(By the way, the attorneys involved have brought up the question of alcohol.)

[gejohnston]

102. it is entirely possible that

the guys were drinking and the kids were burglars. Or, maybe neither is the case.

[rl6214]

115. "The point is we don't have the facts yet."

Yet you very quickly and very often are willing to post this:

"Or maybe the teen crowd was outside fooling around

and a bunch of beer-drinking fishermen, having heard of previous break-ins, just got paranoid."

[pnwmom]

118. A bunch of people here instantly bought the idea that the teens were burglars.

All I'm saying was that there was another plausible theory that the teens weren't bad, and that the shooters were the guilty parties.

We don't know enough yet.

[HooptieWagon]

194. The sherriffs say they were committing armed burglaries.

Who knows, maybe the kids were drinking. Wouldnt be a shock.

[pnwmom]

196. Yeah, and sheriffs have never arrested people who turned out to be innocent?

Have I landed in freeperville? It's sure feeling that way.

Maybe the kids WERE drinking. But they didn't shoot anyone. I'd sure love to know the alcohol levels of the shooters, but something tells me that the sheriff didn't get the levels of the "gentlemen" involved.

[sarisataka]

15. Someone will be charged

So far there seems to be three different versions of what happened:

They fired into the dark- negligent, manslaughter
They chased the kids and shot her while she was fleeing- manslaughter or murder
They fired at someone inside the shack and she was struck- quite possibly self-defense. Murder charges could be filed against the males

There is a lot more to this story than those short articles.

At the risk of being callous about a teen who has been tragically injured, I don't believe innocent is an apt term here. She lied to her family about her whereabouts, was running around at 4 a.m. with boys getting into trouble.... She is a smart person so I believe she was aware of what was going on, if not a participant. Maybe it was the thrill of being around 'bad kids'.

All in all a very sad situation. Hopefully she will pull through.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I'm with you on this one

Lots of ways it could go and the media is interested in eyeballs, not accuracy

[pnwmom]

199. The DA says there's not enough evidence to charge them. Sound familiar?

Baldwin County District Attorney Hallie Dixon says at this point, there's not enough evidence to charge the three men involved in the shooting of 17-year old Summer Moody.

On Sunday, the men stumbled upon a burglary in progress at a fishing camp on Gravine Island. The men fired two warning shots- one of the shots hit Moody in the back of the head.

Although Dixon says she won't charge the men involved in the shooting- she has charged three teens who were with Moody at the time of the break-in as adults.

SNIP

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/new-updates-gravine-island-investigation-ar-3626225/

____________

Interestingly, this account says that the men "stumbled upon a burglary in progress." In another report, a deputy was quoted as saying that the men heard noises, so they left their own camp, got in a boat, crossed a small river, got out of the boat and pursued the teens on foot, before shooting the girl.

But why bother investigating? Why even name the shooters? Who cares? It was just some 17 year old girl. She must have been guilty of something, or what was she doing there?

Sounds like she was guilty of being 17 . . . there's a lot of that going around lately.

[sarisataka]

251. I note the DA says

"at this time" twice...

But why bother investigating?

I am up to about 5 or 6 versions of what happened now. It would be nice to get evidence to find which is correct

Why even name the shooters?

If charged it is public record. I am sure they will eventually be identifed

Who cares?

We do, else we would not be discussing it.

She must have been guilty of something

It sounds like she could be an accomplice to armed burglary. Or maybe not. Another reason to investigate.

what was she doing there?

Excellent question

Sounds like she was guilty of being 17 . . . there's a lot of that going around lately.

A lot of assumption of guilt based on sketchy news reports too.

[gejohnston]

254. I'm guessing

the DA is waiting for the results from the ballistics test to see which gun the bullet came from and who fired it. It would be pretty embarrassing for the DA to charge one of the adults only to find out that the bullet did not come from any of their guns.

[pnwmom]

281. But why not name all three adults who were present as having been there?

Why the secrecy?

They named Summer Moody, who is a minor, before anyone else -- and she wasn't being charged with anything. As a minor, her identity was supposed to be protected, and her parents were very upset that it wasn't. Meanwhile, the names of the adults are being covered up.

[gejohnston]

286. good question

I'm guessing the adults have not been charged with anything yet. Once they figure out who fired the shot that hit Ms. Moody, that person will be charged and named.

[pnwmom]

304. Reports today said that the prosecutor won't be charging the shooter. Maybe we'll never know. n/t

[aquart]

16. Yup. Ain't nothin' more terrifyin' to a man than a 17 year old girl.

But I don't think of burglary as fun or a prank or anything but a felony.

[abelenkpe]

21. My brother and a bunch of his friends used

To hang out in an abandoned home when they were teenagers. I suppose technically it belonged to someone as it stood on a farm. Should they have been shot too? When I was a teenager we'd go exploring through homes at construction sites. Would it be ok to shoot us? From the article it doesn't sound like they thought anyone was around and were just trying to open one of the buildings. Besides, I think shooting someone as from behind is what cowards do. Why couldn't the shooter just call the police like a normal person? Those kids weren't threatening. Last year I caught a guy breaking into my car walking off with my kids stroller and a bunch of snacks. I yelled at him and chased him a bit and he dropped the stroller. With these stupid syg laws would have been ok if I shot him instead?
Personally I have less fear of thieves and criminals than of paranoid gun nuts who have to carry a loaded weapon to go to the grocery store and are amped up on fear sold to them 24/7 by hate radio and FOX news.

[pnwmom]

47. +1. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Big, brave men.

Shooting someone on the run in the back of the head -

[Remmah2]

19. What would you have done?

Unknown persons breaking into your bedroom?

Stupid young men.

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. NOT what these gunslingin' idiots did.

Fire blindly into the dark?

Stupid gun toters.

It's a wonder they didn't shoot each other.

[Remmah2]

26. Do you think the teens bear any responsibility in this?

What did the author of the article mean by partying? Stoned? Drunk? Were they impared? Were the fishermen drunk/hung over?

Is 17 the legal drinking age?

Is there a difference between this and playing chicken in a car?

[pnwmom]

49. Yes, I'd also like to know if the fisherman who did the shooting was alcohol-impaired.

[Remmah2]

55. As do I.

nt

[pnwmom]

48. Would you chase them on foot across the campground,

and then shoot one in the back of the head?

That's what the police are saying someone did.

[jpak]

18. Another Second Amendment Solution - All Hail the Gun Heros!

Huzzah!



yup

[Hoyt]

23. Fish camp? What kind of fishing were they doing with guns?

Well, I'm sure the gun culture calls this a "good shoot."

[riverwalker]

27. what happened to

just yelling "hey you kids, get outta here". So the outhouse shanty in the fishing camp was worth a human life? Bunch of candy assed chicken shit fisherman. I camp in the wilderness, bears are everywhere, and we wouldn't ever consider packing guns for "fishing".

[rl6214]

117. At 4am in a fishing camp, I'd be willing to bet there aren't too many lights around

to be able to identify WHO was kicking in your door.

[pnwmom]

198. The kids were too far away to do that. So, instead, the fisherman

left their own camp, got in a boat, crossed a river, got out of the boat, and chased the teens on foot till they shot one in the back of the head.

And the majority of people here seem to think they were justified.

[WinniSkipper]

278. Where does it say this?

"got in a boat, crossed a river, got out of the boat, and chased the teens on foot till they shot one in the back of the head." I think this is the 3rd or 4th time you have said this. I thin this would certainly change the direction of the investigation.

The most recent stories I have seen said something along the lines of "heard a noise and went to investigate" - which seems to say they (fisherman) were already on the island. Seems like they got up from their camp and left to see what happened. Perhaps the noise of the door being broken at the other camp disturbed them.

What happened next seems to be where the gray area really begins.

But can we agree on this? If the scenario turns out to be (which I think is likely):

fisherman went to investigate - took someone's advice from this thread and said "Hey you kids get out of here" - and then fired a warning shot which they thought was going safely into some bushes. It looks like it is a tragic accident. Initiated by 4 teens mischief of private land. I am not absolving the fisherman of responsibility, but right now it looks like the onus is on the kids

Will we then hear the end of "why don't people fire a warning shot"? Because this is exactly why you don't.

[pnwmom]

287. Here's a picture of the "slough" they had to cross to get to where the teens were.

And they had to take a boat to leave. One way or another, they didn't just stumble on the teens. They pursued them across the water and then started shooting.

I also provided a different link at another post that you wrote.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/04/shot_teen_summer_moody_still_a.html

[WinniSkipper]

290. The fisherman were already there

It's the teens who crossed at night.

ETA - saw the deputies version in your link. And I had seen it exactly opposite in another story. Will try to find that. But yes - if that is indeed the case - that may present an issue for the fisherman.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. I'm rather sure...

...Alabama had the same SYG law in January of 2012. Said law did not preclude an arrest in this case: http://blog.al.com/montgomery/2012/01/16-year-old_opelikan_arrested.html

After reading both articles to which you linked it appears that you inferred that "no charges will be filed". In reality it says no charges HAVE been filed.


So inquiring minds want to know: Do have that ADD?

[moobu2]

32. That article u linked to just says a 16 Y/O kid was charged for shooting someone.

no details.

But anyway, me saying no charges will be filed was just me expressing my opinion like nearly everything else I post is. I live in the area and know of several questionable SYG shootings where no charges were filed, We'll see what happens.

Also, below is a quote form this district attorney the paper contacted. He said in Alabama "citizens have a right to use deadly force against an aggressor to protect themselves or their property". It's a Pretty wide open law with a lot of wiggle room. I can not see any district attorney charging anyone over this. What they might do is just turn it over to the Grand Jury and let them decide.

The newspaper, however, contacted Conecuh County District Attorney Tommy Chapman, who referenced the Florida law that has become a focus of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting in that state.
"Alabama’s law is not quite like Florida’s ‘stand your ground law’ but it is close," Chapman said.
He said that Alabama citizens have a right to use deadly force against an aggressor to protect themselves or their property, but such cases hinge on the actual circumstances. He said that Alabama’s law has potential for abuse.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/04/shot_teen_summer_moody_still_a.html

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. My mistake...

...I took your subject to fact rather than opinion.

Many laws due to their wording or lack thereof have a potential for abuse. Court proceedings where failures in the laws are highlighted should lead to judicial review of the law(s) in question in cases where few or precedents exist.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. More details in the case.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/04/shot_teen_summer_moody_still_a.html

Here is the "camp". These are basically recreational cabins:



"According to the account of sheriff’s investigators, Moody and three teenage boys went early Sunday to the island.

"At some point in time," Sheriff Huey "Hoss" Mack said at a news conference, "it is believed the three of the juveniles — the three male juveniles at least — went into two fishing/hunting camps there adjacent to the island and we believe committed theft."

Two men staying at a camp on the back side of the island heard a door being broken. One of the men, according to Mack, was a caretaker of the property, knew of several recent break-ins and went to investigate.

The men discovered intruders and fired once each, Mack said.

Apparently, he said, Moody was hit by one of those shots. He said that a bullet from a small-caliber rifle struck her "toward the back of the head." "

The way I read this is 4 kids went to do some petty burglary, and Summer probably went along but was standing nearby when they were confronted by the property caretaker and his friend.

I'm sure more details will come to light as the investigation continues but at face value I see burglars who got shot at for burgling. I have no problem with the use of deadly force to protect property.

If the facts turn out to support my interpretation of events, then this ought to be a lesson to people about the perils of breaking into people's property.

[pnwmom]

40. So you think it is okay to chase burglars down and shoot them in the back of the head?

[Atypical Liberal]

50. No.

So you think it is okay to chase burglars down and shoot them in the back of the head?

No.

[pnwmom]

56. That's what the police are saying happened. And if that is the case,

I hope the shooter learns a lesson about not chasing suspected burglars and shooting them in the back of the head.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. I have not heard that.

The latest I have read is that the armed men fired a warning shot into some bushes, which struck the girl hiding there.

I have not read anything about chasing people down.

[pnwmom]

82. Here's a link to an interview with an investigator who says they were chased.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/16/gravine-island-footchase-turns-violent-ar-3618749/

[Hoyt]

178. And a lesson for yahoos with guns that killing someone when not much is at stake is

friggin wrong.

[moobu2]

35. Here's a Google Earth map of where this happened.

If you look at the white area on the map on the second image I pointed to, you can see that it's the only large white sand bar in the entire area. It's pretty common for people to go there on their boats to enjoy the sand and play around. I wouldn't be surprised if the kids just went to the sand bar to play around, saw the deserted looking buildings and decided to explore. There isn't any power to that area so there wouldn't be any TV's, computers, AC's or other electronics and it's common knowledge that no one would keep anything of value at them. The buildings are in a heavily trafficked area but there's no way to secure anything from thieves. Mostly my opinion.

[pnwmom]

41. I think that's a reasonable possibility. It's possible the kids were just messing around

and the men, aware of previous break-ins, got paranoid. And what if alcohol was added to this situation? Of course, men out fishing never drink beer, do they?



Here's something from today:

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/summer-moody-update-ar-3623945/
Attorney Robert Stankowski says the family is frustrated about how Summer is being portrayed in this case, when there is no evidence at this point that she did anything wrong.

"We certainly have a lot of questions involved about whether or not the use of deadly force would have been appropriate under these circumstances. What these men were doing out there when they were firing these shots, whether or not alcohol was involved, whether or not these men put themselves in the zone of danger and created this situation," says attorney Robert Stankowski.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. "Exploring" at 4am.

I guess one person's burglary is another's exploring.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. An hour ago...

...this was published:

BAY MINETTE, Ala. — Authorities believe a former high school volleyball star was hit in the back of the head by a warning shot while three other teens allegedly burglarized an Alabama fish camp.

link: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/eda81125979b4801a4745d7ea3aa826b/AL--Fish-Camp-Shooting/

I recall not long ago someone was extolling the virtues of the warning shot as popularized on tv and film.

http://binged.it/HNFpIx

This looks to me like an area where law enforcement maybe 30-40 minutes away. No roads, no bridges, only boat access to this area. This is not a place where you want to go surprising folks in the dark.

It's just sad all around.

[Atypical Liberal]

53. Shot while hiding.

"Mack says Moody was found shot in bushes where she was believed to be hiding."

It's sure sounding like these kids were up to no good.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. re: "...up to no good."

I really sympathize with her parents. No one wants to have this happen.

Your minor daughter is shot at 4 AM a 12 mile drive and a 1 mile boat ride away from where you thought she was. She's in critical condition and unconscious. I'm guessing the 3 young men she was with are known to the parents as they aren't charged with kidnapping.

I remember being 17. I wasn't long on wisdom. I don't know about "no good" but risky and stupid seem like accurate adjectives for this kind of behavior.

[pnwmom]

62. I think it's worse than risky and stupid to chase a teen down and shoot her in the back of the head.

Which is what police say happened.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. At this point...

...the reports are not conclusive. Of the two groups, the teens and the fishermen, the teens have been charged and the fishermen have not.


I have two daughters myself. My concern for their safety is constant. I don't want to imagine being in that situation. At this point nothing I've read leads me to believe for sure that the fishermen acted with the intention of harming another. They seem to have carelessly discharged firearms but the facts here are spotty.

BAY MINETTE, Ala. (AP) - Authorities believe a former high school volleyball star was hit in the back of the head by a warning shot while three other teens allegedly burglarized an Alabama fish camp.

Baldwin County Sheriff Huey "Hoss" Mack says 17-year-old Summer Moody was shot around 4 a.m. Sunday on Gravine Island in the Mobile Tensau Delta.

He says three men staying at the camp went to investigate what they thought was a break-in. 2 of those men fired warning shots.

Mack says Moody was found shot in bushes where she was believed to be hiding.

A University of South Alabama Medical Center spokeswoman says Moody remains in critical condition Tuesday morning.

The three men were questioned by authorities and released. The teens are being held on burglary charges.

[pnwmom]

69. Yes, and George Zimmerman wasn't charged for how long?

The fact that the shooters haven't been charged yet doesn't mean they won't be. In any just world, there would be charges against anyone who shot an unarmed girl in the back of the head.

And, as I said, I sure hope the police did some blood alcohol testing.

[gejohnston]

75. The Alabama game department

and I'm guessing that is who showed up, are probably more on the ball than Sanford PD. Besides, I doubt any of the guys' parents contributed to any of the DA's campaign.

[Atypical Liberal]

76. So what happens if they are innocent?

In any just world, there would be charges against anyone who shot an unarmed girl in the back of the head.

The problem comes when innocent people lawfully defend themselves or their property. If you charge them with a crime, they will have to spend many thousands of dollars defending themselves. This is the sort of thing Castle Doctrines and SYG laws were intended to prevent.

I don't have a problem with your proposal if the taxpayers foot the legal bills for people who are found to have lawfully defended themselves or their property.

I agree that every time there is a death there should be an investigation. But the cost of such investigations should not be a burden on the innocent.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. As I said...

...over 2 hours ago, sad all around.

I agree that every time there is a death there should be an investigation. But the cost of such investigations should not be a burden on the innocent.

I can agree with that.

[pnwmom]

79. People should not be able to execute others for the crime of taking their property.

You can't claim self-defense when you shoot someone in the back of the head.
And it isn't even clear that the shooter's own property was ever at stake.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. I disagree.

People should not be able to execute others for the crime of taking their property.

I disagree. I fully support the use of deadly force to defend property.

You can't claim self-defense when you shoot someone in the back of the head.

Yes, you can. There was a case posted here in the last few weeks of a person who shot a home invader in the back and he was acquitted of both criminal and civil charges.

And it isn't even clear that the shooter's own property was ever at stake.

I would assume that the caretaker's job is to take care of the owner's property. I would assume this includes protecting it from theft.

[DiverDave]

227. So you would shot someone over STUFF?

are you insane?
Peoples lives are worth more then STUFF.

So, where would you draw the line 5 bucks?, 10 bucks? 100?

Killing someone that is not threatening you is murder, plain and simple

Running away with STUFF is a scary situation, I know.
And it takes a BIG man to shoot someone over STUFF.

I happen to believe a life is infinitely more valuable then ALL of your stuff.

[Atypical Liberal]

234. I am authorized by law to do so.

Peoples lives are worth more then STUFF.

So, where would you draw the line 5 bucks?, 10 bucks? 100?

Killing someone that is not threatening you is murder, plain and simple

Running away with STUFF is a scary situation, I know.
And it takes a BIG man to shoot someone over STUFF.

I happen to believe a life is infinitely more valuable then ALL of your stuff.

In my state (Alabama), by law, I can use deadly force to stop someone committing robbery in any degree or burglary in any degree. I can also use deadly force against someone in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.

Moreover, I can't be arrested for doing so, unless there is probable cause that my use of deadly force was unlawful.

In my state, by law, I can shoot someone committing robbery or burglary of me even for $5, and I can't be arrested for it without probable cause.

It is not I who am setting the value of the criminal's life - they are. If they have decided to risk their own life for $5, then they themselves have set the value of their life at $5.

[pnwmom]

288. The Alabama criminal attorneys who were interviewed on TV said that isn't true.

You can't, by law, shoot at a RETREATING individual, even if he has some of your stuff.

[Atypical Liberal]

299. That is not the way I read the law.

http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-3-23.html

According to what I am reading here, and individual may use deadly force "if the person reasonably believes that another person is ... committing or about to commit ... burglary in any degree" or "robbery in any degree".

The way I read this if you catch them committing burglary or robbery, including running away with the stolen property, you can use deadly force to stop them.

Of course, I'm not an attorney.

[pnwmom]

301. "Is committing" or is "about to commit" is not the same as "did commit."

If a burglar is confronting you, you can shoot.

Once a burglar has taken something and is RETREATING, you don't get to shoot them in the back.

[Atypical Liberal]

305. Sounds like a question for a court to decide.

If a burglar is confronting you, you can shoot.

Once a burglar has taken something and is RETREATING, you don't get to shoot them in the back.

Seems to me if they have the stolen goods in their hands and are in the process of taking it, they are still in the process of committing the burglary or robbery.

It doesn't make sense to me that as soon as they successfully pick up the property they are intent on stealing that they are then home free.

But again, I'm not an attorney.

And bear in mind, the burglar does not have to be confronting you in order to shoot them.

[pnwmom]

309. If you are in your own home, the burglar doesn't have to be confronting you -- correct.

These gunmen weren't in their own home. They left their own camp area and made an effort -- crossing a body of water -- to get to another camp. Then they shot someone who was outside in the back of the head.

There is nothing in in Stand your ground or the Castle doctrine that applies to this situation.

[Atypical Liberal]

316. Alabama law does not stipulate a location such as a home.

Alabama law says that you may use deadly force to stop someone who is committing or about to commit any degree of burglary or any degree of robbery.

The 3 teens have been charged with 1st-degree burglary. Assuming they were committing that crime, and the caretaker and his friend reasonably believed that they were doing so, by Alabama law I believe they were justified in using deadly force.

There is nothing in in Stand your ground or the Castle doctrine that applies to this situation.

Again, feel free to read the law yourself:

http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-3-23.html

[pnwmom]

323. Nothing in that law applies to innocent bystanders, and there's been no evidence

presented saying that she was doing anything but standing in some bushes.

[Atypical Liberal]

325. It's pretty clear that she was with the boys and at least the boys were commiting a crime.

Nothing in that law applies to innocent bystanders, and there's been no evidence presented saying that she was doing anything but standing in some bushes.

It's true we don't know exactly what Summer was doing.

We are going to have to wait for the testimony from her 3 friends and the caretaker and his friend to paint a clearer picture.

However, it seems pretty clear from what is publicly known that Summer and 3 boys lied about where they were and at 4am took a gun and went to an island and at least some of them were involved in breaking into private property.

Her 3 friends have all been charged with 1st-degree burglary. I think it's a pretty safe bet that had Summer survived and been caught, she probably would have been charged also.

What really happened? We don't know. Maybe Summer was hanging out with the 3 hoodlums and tried to talk them out of it and when it failed she went and hid in some bushes.

The question is, did the caretaker and his friend reasonably believe there was a burglary taking place? If so, per Alabama law, they were authorized to use deadly force, and they cannot be arrested for it nor held liable either criminally or civilly.

If Summer really wasn't involved in the burglary, it's tragic that she tagged along and put herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But you can bet - if Summer dies those boys will be charged with her murder for getting her into the situation where she got shot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

150. Castle Doctrine presumes hostile intent to do GBI or kill

and it is the law in 44 states. It is much more aggressive that SYG in many respects but seems to get much broader support here at DU

[pnwmom]

153. The shooter wasn't threatened in his castle. He was in a fishing camp consisting of some

"buildings" that only had roofs, and others that had roofs and walls. And when he heard sounds at another fishing camp, he got in a boat with his pal and crossed a river to see what was on the other side. Then they opened fire and hit a girl in the back of her head.

It's hard to see how any Castle Doctrine or Stand your Ground Law would apply in these circumstances.

I think it's strange they haven't released the names of the shooters yet. Who are the "gentlemen" they're protecting?

http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Teens-Charged-as-Adults-in-Gravine-Island/xOzHljVPvU68nIGBwSDu9Q.cspx

(BALDWIN COUNTY, Ala.) - Three teenage boys are now being charged as adults in connection with burglaries on Gravine Island. Another teenager, Summer Moody, 17, was shot during the incident by someone at a fish camp there.

The whole thing started around 4 a.m. Sunday. Baldwin County Sheriffs Deputies say Scott Byrd, Daniel Parnell and Dillon Tyree, all 17, along with Moody went to Gravine Island and broke into several fish camps there.

Three men on the island heard the teens breaking into one fish camp, deputies say those men had to cross a small river to get to the fish camp where the teens were. They began shooting. Moody was hit in the back of the head. She remains in critical condition at USA Medical Center.

Deputies say Byrd, Tyree and Parnell are now being charged as adults because they had a weapon when they were committing the burglaries.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

155. I was responding to your broad generalization in the title to post 79...

"People should not be able to execute others for the crime of taking their property". Castle Doctrine allows the shooting of residential home invaders, armed or not, even if thy are just taking stuff.

It has been interesting to see the breadth of the discussion change in this thread as more things came to light since the OP. As I write this the main theme seems to be hit accidentally by a waring shot...have to wonder if that will be the same thing by this time tomorrow. Sort of reminds me of another high profile case....

[pnwmom]

162. I think you're justified in shooting back if armed intruders invade your home

because you have no way of knowing that you're not at risk, and that all they will do is to grab some stuff.

However, this case appears to be very different. This appears to be a case of armed fisherman taking it upon themselves to go on patrol; and then shooting first, asking questions later.

And yes, it is starting to remind me of another case.

I'm also very curious about why the names of the "gentlemen" (that word has been used) have not yet been released. Are they protecting someone important in the town?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

170. Problem is that its hard to tell if the intruders are armed or not

which is why Castle Doctrine expressly states that there is a presumption of intent to do GBI or kill whether the intruders are armed or not

If the accidental shooting theory in this case holds up, felony murder rule could make the teenagers responsible.

As for the names, they will come out in time, as should the rest of the facts.

[pnwmom]

172. But how would the Castle Doctrine apply in this situation, if it is true

that the shooters left their own camp, got in a boat, and crossed a river -- and only then started shooting?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

176. Again...general comments in response to general comments, and then specifics on this case

In separate paragraphs.

From what is the current story as I write this, it is outside the scope of classic Castle Doctrine and SYG, though each state has its own spin on those. Not sure enough about Georgia law at this point.

My current assessment is that *with what is being said as I write this*:
The victim was part of a group engaged in criminal mischief and was accidentally shot (not targeted). The other members of that group may well be charged under Georgia's felony murder rule should she die. I doubt you would be able to find a jury in area to convict the shooters under those circumstances.

That said, I am not convinced it was a "good" shooting. I consider the use of warning shots without clear knowledge of where they are going to be reckless. Still it would not have happened had the victim not been participating in the criminal mischief. I don't see any innocents or heros with good judgement at this point.

[pnwmom]

188. This is a link to an article and video including comments from a two local criminal defense

attorneys who suggest that this shooting may not have been justified.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/was-moody-shooting-justified-ar-3626193/

“A person who is in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat. They have a right to stand their ground and use whatever force is necessary including deadly force,” said criminal defense attorney Jeff Deen.

But even criminal defense attorneys say under these circumstances it would be hard to make that argument.

“You can't be the aggressor in any circumstances. If the person is retreating and there is no danger or no threat of serious physical force to be used against you or another you have no right to use deadly physical force against a retreating person,” said criminal defense attorney Dennis Knizley.

“You have a right to stand your ground. Face them face to face. But if that person is running away, do you have the right to chase them out in the street and gun them down? I don't think so,” said Deen.

[oneshooter]

382. So when do you want these men executed? You already have found them guilty.

without a trial. OH wait, you did give them a trial, right here on DU.

Ain't that just soooooo progressive of you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[gejohnston]

164. depends on the state

in Wyoming for example, your current living quarters is your "castle". It applies equally to your house, tent, fishing cabin you are dwelling in, and even a refrigerator box. Alabama may or may not be the same.

[pnwmom]

165. But it wouldn't apply in the case where you LEFT your current quarters and got in a boat

and crossed a river to chase some noises down -- and then let loose shooting without making sure you weren't going to hit someone in the back of the head!

[HooptieWagon]

200. Look at the sattellite picture.

It wasnt the large river the men crossed, it was a small creek. They were in the cabin next to the small creek. One was the caretaker of the island. I would think castle doctrine would apply to a caretaker authorized to look after the property. And it doesnt appear he either chased or targeted the girl. He possibly didnt even know she was there. And if he saw one of the teens carrying a rifle, as the sherriffs say, then he would appear to be completely justified in firing at armed tresspassers committing burglaries.

[pnwmom]

201. Here's a link to some comments made by 2 local criminal defense attorneys

who suggest that this shooting may not have been justified, under the Castle Doctrine or anything else.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/was-moody-shooting-justified-ar-3626193/

“A person who is in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat. They have a right to stand their ground and use whatever force is necessary including deadly force,” said criminal defense attorney Jeff Deen.

But even criminal defense attorneys say under these circumstances it would be hard to make that argument.

“You can't be the aggressor in any circumstances. If the person is retreating and there is no danger or no threat of serious physical force to be used against you or another you have no right to use deadly physical force against a retreating person,” said criminal defense attorney Dennis Knizley.

“You have a right to stand your ground. Face them face to face. But if that person is running away, do you have the right to chase them out in the street and gun them down? I don't think so,” said Deen.

[Atypical Liberal]

236. Doesn't matter. Alabama law allows deadly force to stop robbery and burglary in any degree.

The shooter wasn't threatened in his castle.

Doesn't matter.

Alabama law:

Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring.

[pnwmom]

462. Does Alabama law allow people with cocaine trafficking convictions to shoot unarmed teenagers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002590425

[gejohnston]

463. federal law prohibits

felons from possessing. So why have they not been charged for that?

[pnwmom]

464. I wonder that, too. Hearn's lawyer says he doesn't own a gun.

Assuming he didn't borrow a gun, that leaves one of the other two. One of them, like Hearn, has a cocaine trafficking conviction. The other guy's the one with a theft conviction. Maybe that wasn't a felony and he just happened to be the actual shooter?

Who knows. But these guys aren't the "gentlemen" they've been portrayed as.

[gejohnston]

465. doesn't matter

possess, touch, rent doesn't matter. They can not possess. I sold a house to a guy that 18 months for pot when he was a kid. Thirty years later, got caught with a skeet gun, got five years in the federal pen.
I never claimed they were gentlemen. I never claimed anything, other than not worthy of a vigilante lynch mob.

[pnwmom]

466. It was the Sheriff who repeatedly used the word "gentlemen" to describe them -- I know

it wasn't you.

What bothered me most was the lynch mob here against the teens, who haven't been convicted of anything yet. All we had publicly was the word of these adults -- repeated by the Sheriff -- that the teens had been attempting a break-in. And yet there are people here gloating that the teens might face life in prison for the crimes they haven't been convicted of yet.

Does this new information affect your thoughts about the adults' credibility?

[gejohnston]

467. the lynch mob was not against the teens

all of the evidence and charges were pointed at them. They were not gloating, making statements of what the possibilities were. The DA seems to think he can prove those charges.
You on the other hand, were convince that the "gentlemen" were guilty of something even though the DA and the cops did not seem to find anything.

[pnwmom]

468. You must have missed all of those comments.

Calling the teens "criminals" and "thugs" and "armed criminals" even though there hasn't been a trial yet, much less a conviction.

The only thing we did know for a FACT is that the girl was hit in the back of the head -- and that the Sheriff seemed more concerned about nailing the teens than the shooters.

[gejohnston]

469. their crimes were obvious

they had to get the bullet and information for the rest. Look, I doubt it has anything to do with race. On the outside chance it does, Al Sharpton won't be there for the fight.
Does not seem to do with class.

She was hit in the back of the head. Police investigations have to find all of the details and nuances, because it will come out in a trial. That is the way it works.

[pnwmom]

470. The Sheriff had to know early on about the records of the fishermen.

Yet he kept all the focus on the alleged crimes of the teens -- even though the only evidence at first would have been the statements by the fishermen (for example, that the teens had left some stolen goods in a boat, or that the teens must have broken in a door.)

I agree that race and class don't seem to be involved here. Maybe it's the good ole boy network? Who knows.

[gejohnston]

471. Could be

Could be reverse classism.

[pnwmom]

61. She was shot in the back of the head. Of course she was hiding -- she was probably terrified.

You don't shoot someone in the back of the head and claim self-defense.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. That's not the current description of events.

The current description of events was that she was hiding in the bushes when one of the two men fired a warning shot. They may not have known she was even there.

Of course, all details are not yet known. I'm sure the three boys arrested for burglary will have more to say.

[TheCowsCameHome]

65. Yeah, they probably shoot bushes all the time.

It's harmless fun.

[X_Digger]

68. Wait, I seem to remember you being a proponent of 'warning shots'..

.. and you were told then that this was a bad idea, for this very reason.

Which is it? You can't have your Kate and Edith, too.

[TheCowsCameHome]

85. Better than in the back of a young girl's head, my friend.

or do you think this is ok?

[Clames]

90. Yeah, let's see you explain...

...the difference between an intentionally aimed shot in the back of a young girl's head and an errant "warning" shot in the back of a young girl's head. Please....

[X_Digger]

91. A warning shot killed this girl. Hard to imagine a worse outcome.

But you go ahead and keep talking about warning shots as good things. We'll keep reminding you of what warning shots can lead to.

[pnwmom]

169. If what the deputy said today was true -- that the fisherman heard some noises on the other side

of the island, and got in a boat and crossed a river, and then came out shooting . . . .

would you still call that a "warning shot"?

Or is this some kind of island vigilante?

[Atypical Liberal]

70. We'll see what the investigation turns up.

This reinforces the whole idea that firing warning shots is a bad idea.

[pnwmom]

73. Absolutely. And if you're going to fire a warning shot, shoot it into the dirt at your own feet.

Not straight out into the dark at head level.

[Atypical Liberal]

77. You should never fire warning shots.

If the situation is dire enough to warrant shooting, shoot to incapacitate. If it's not dire enough for that, don't shoot.

If you start firing off warning shots and then have to shoot for real, a case is going to be made against you that you had time to run away if you had time for warning shots.

[rl6214]

121. No, no, no, we were told here just last week the warning shot should be into a door that someone

is standing behind.

[rl6214]

120. But the anti-gun zealots claimed just last week that you should fire a warning shot into a door

that someone is standing right behind to scare them away. Which way do you want it, warning shot or no warning shot?

[pnwmom]

72. There is an equally "current" description saying that the shooters

chased the kids on foot and fired two shots at them.

Why would you fire a "warning shot" at someone you were chasing? They were already running away!

[DonP]

86. Let me help you with that

"... chased the escaping criminals on foot and fired two shots at them."

There, all fixed up to reflect the truth about the three already arrested and charged teens and the fourth that may well be charged as an accessory when she's released from the hospital.

You keep posting that "we need to wait for the facts" then merrily proceed to keep talking about the "kids" and speculate on how the men were drunk or probably drunk.

Stop embarrassing yourself and actually wait for some real facts.

[pnwmom]

104. It's not legal for civilians to shoot at "escaping criminals." That's not self-defense.

I said we need to wait for the facts because so many people here were accusing the teens of being criminals -- when it is just as likely, IMHO, that the shooter (with no permit) was the real criminal.

[gejohnston]

105. what permit?

Most states don't require permits for rifles. He could not possibly be carrying it concealed.

[pnwmom]

110. This article mentions the lack of a permit, among other issues.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/baldwin_county/attorney-to-discuss-gravine-island-shooting

"We have serious and substantial questions as to whether or not, the use of deadly force was justified, or was appropriate under these circumstances. We have questions as to whether or not the shooters or shooter involved in this put himself in that zone of danger, came down to this place where these kids were located, and had been that particular evening, and thereby created a dangerous situation," he said.

Stankowski even questions whether the adults involved in the shooting were legitimately on the island.

"It was not a dwelling or a residence of some sort, it's our information and we believe that these individuals came from somewhere else, possibly in a boat, and came down there and confronted these kids," the attorney said.

Another question Stankowski has is whether the shooters had permits for their weapons.

[gejohnston]

113. I am guessing it is fishing or hunting permits

because Alabama only requires a permit for concealed carry of pistols. If they were able to conceal the rifles, then that would be a federal issue with sawed off rifles.

[pnwmom]

114. No, the article specifically referred to a gun permit. I don't know any more than that.

"Another question Stankowski has is whether the shooters had permits for their weapons."

[gejohnston]

116. search me

I looked up the Alabama law. The only thing I can think of is someone had a concealed pistol (possible, but someone would be going to jail for unlicensed concealed carry) or that county might have its own law. The more probable explanation is that the writer did not know what they are talking about.

[PavePusher]

126. See comment #124. n/t

[pnwmom]

127. The attorney was the one who mentioned a gun permit.

I don't know what he was referring to.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

129. Not exactly....

Stankoski said the family is not granting any more interviews, but does have a number of concerns. He said they question why Moody, a minor, had her personal information released to the media. The family also questions whether the shooters had been drinking alcohol and whether they were properly permitted to carry their firearms.

link: http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/usatoday/article/39062027?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

It also appears the 4 teens had a firearm.

[Atypical Liberal]

321. I live in Alabama. No permit is required except for concealed weapons.

Longarms do not require a permit.

[baldguy]

112. Kids being kids.

Yes, teenagers can be stupid & annoying sometimes. And when they get up to "no good" - they should be shot in the back of the head and left to die in a cold, dark night.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Atypical Liberal]

130. That's the risk you take when you burgle.

Yes, teenagers can be stupid & annoying sometimes.

And they can be criminals, too. When you burgle someone's property, you risk getting shot. Best bet is not to engage in criminal activity that can get you shot.

[baldguy]

132. Read the damn story! She wasn't trying to burgle ANYTHING!

Every day we get some story of a jackass with a gun trying to kill someone. More evidence that having a gun creates the jackass!

Time to get rid of the guns. Gun owners have collectively proven they can't handle them responsibly.

[oneshooter]

133. So get off of your ass and start! Get a petition up to change the law.

Don't just stand there crying like a small child. Get mad and DO SOMETHING!!!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

135. It's certainly time to get the guns...

...away from minors who engage in burglary.

Baldwin County Sheriff's office spokesman Maj. Anthony Lowery said it is believed the youths had gone to the island to dig for frogs and shoot alligators and had a firearm for that purpose.

more - http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/usatoday/article/39062027?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

[baldguy]

140. Please show where the story indicates that THE VICTIM was carrying a gun.

Stop trying to make excuses for murderers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

143. I'm not making excuses.

Please show where the story indicates that THE VICTIM was carrying a gun.

Why should I? That seems rather irrelevant.

[pnwmom]

203. How is that irrelevant? The victim was completely non-threatening.

The shooters shouldn't have chased the teens down and shot into the darkness. Morally, this is totally wrong and it should be legally, too.


http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/17/was-moody-shooting-justified-ar-3626193/

“A person who is in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat. They have a right to stand their ground and use whatever force is necessary including deadly force,” said criminal defense attorney Jeff Deen.

But even criminal defense attorneys say under these circumstances it would be hard to make that argument.

“You can't be the aggressor in any circumstances. If the person is retreating and there is no danger or no threat of serious physical force to be used against you or another you have no right to use deadly physical force against a retreating person,” said criminal defense attorney Dennis Knizley.

“You have a right to stand your ground. Face them face to face. But if that person is running away, do you have the right to chase them out in the street and gun them down? I don't think so,” said Deen.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

239. I hold...

...that the fishermen were very reckless in firing warning shots. All the facts are not known at this time but there is at least one plausible scenario where Ms. Moody is presumed to be hiding and not visible. How it matters what she was or wasn't holding, if she was shot unintentionally, is beyond me.

The fishermen are not, IMHO, blameless here, but all the facts are not known.

[baldguy]

224. It's simple, Simple: if she didn't have a gun she was not a deadly threat, or a lawful target.

And YOU brought the fact that a 3rd party - not the shooter and not the victim - may have had a gun.

This story is the perfect example proving there are too many guns in this country in the hands of too many idiots: THE GUYS IN THE CABIN AND THE KIDS WITH THE GUN ARE BOTH IN THE WRONG.

Carrying a gun doesn't make one "right".
Shooting an innocent bystander is not a virtue.
If guns were removed from the equation, there would be no victim in this case - and thousands of others.

Your mindless knee-jerk defense of every murderer who claims "self defense" is obscene, just as is your demonetization of the murder victims in such cases.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

241. BOTH IN THE WRONG

Agreed, at least as best I can determine now with limited facts.

If guns were removed from the equation, there would be no victim in this case - and thousands of others.

This is a what I consider a hypothetical question as there is no way to get the over 200,000,000 worms... err, firearms back into the can.

Face it, Pandora's box has been open for a long, long time.

if she didn't have a gun she was not a deadly threat, or a lawful target.

I would, in general, agree. I am very much against the firing of warning shots.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

159. Though well I know the passion of the argument, its premature to call them murderers

Current claim seems to be accidental hit by a warning shot. That is not murder, it is manslaughter at most.

Then again, it could all change overnight...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

154. Yet another specious attempt to argue that inanimate objects can compel behavior

Sounds more like the Staff of Magnus to me.

[Lizzie Poppet]

175. Lay off the hyperbole.

"Time to get rid of the guns. Gun owners have collectively proven they can't handle them responsibly."

That is one of the most pungently idiotic things I've ever read here. there are almost 300 million forearms in civilian hands in the US...in about 50% of all households. There are probably right around 100 million gun owners in the US. If your breathless hyperbole were even remotely true, there would be literally millions of gun-related murders per annum. Instead there are about 15k.

Derp.

[Atypical Liberal]

229. I did read the story. She was with 3 other boys arrested for 1st-degree burglary - they had a gun.

The 3 other boys she was with were arrested for 3rd degree burglary.

This has been upgraded to 1st-degree burglary and they have been charged as adults because they had a gun with them during the commission of the crime.

The story so far is she was hiding in some bushes when the two men fired a warning shot.

Don't hang out with burglars while they are burgling.

[HooptieWagon]

317. Huh? She was in the area of the cabin

while her friends were burglarizing it. She went to the island with the boys with intent to break in to the cabins. She was there, she was an accomplice.

[pnwmom]

332. You're repeating falsehoods.

You know nothing about her intent. Stop pretending that you do.

Most of the island is Federal property and it would be legal for anyone to go there. You don't know that her intention was to break into cabins. You're just mouthing off.

[HooptieWagon]

348. Report says she was "some feet away from the cabin"

Sure doesnt sound like she was distancing herself from felonies being committed by her friends if she was mere feet away from the cabin. Sounds like she was an active participant. Hey, it sucks she was shot, but it was her own bad decisions that led to that result. If she hadnt been breaking in to other peoples cabins and stealing their stuff, she wouldnt have been shot. The responsibilty is hers and her friends, dont blame others.

[pnwmom]

349. "Some feet" could be six feet, or 60 feet, or 100 feet. That tells us nothing about distance

or about her intent.

We don't know that she made any bad decisions, other than going with the boys to an Island that she couldn't leave if something wrong began to transpire.

And the shooters clearly made some "bad decisions" of their own -- at the very least, shooting out into the dark and hitting someone in the back of the head. If this was a "warning shot," then why didn't the shooters shoot into the dirt in front of them? Why did they shoot out into the distance where they couldn't see?

[HooptieWagon]

366. Less than 30 feet.

And why should the caretakers fire into the ground? They were dealing with armed intruders. Alabama law permits them to shoot to kill to protect lives AND property. That they didnt shoot directly at the boys shows restraint. Despite your bleatings to the contrary, the teens were armed intruders committing felony crimes, not innocent kids goofing off.

[pnwmom]

372. They weren't protecting either lives or property when they shot a person in the back of the head.

It isn't protecting anything when you shoot at people who are leaving the scene. That is vengeance, not protection.

[HooptieWagon]

373. Law is cited in posts 240 and 364

Excerpts and links in posts299 and 316. The law is quite explicite that lethal force is legal to protect life AND property. Even in burglaries. And armed burglars can definately be considered a threat, even when retreating since you dont know but at any moment they may fire to cover their getaway. Shit, I wouldnt have even bothered wjth a warning shot, I would have shot to hit the boys. Dont steal peoples stuff, or you might get shot. Seems like an easy enough rule to understand.

[pnwmom]

393. The law is quite explicit that lethal force is only allowed when you're protecting human life

or when you are in a dwelling and a burglar enters it.

So that law does not apply in this situation, where the gunmen were outside and shot blindly into the dark.

Don't shoot people in the back. Seems like an easy enough rule to understand.

[HooptieWagon]

394. Wrong. It says nothing about a dwelling.

It allows lethal force to be used to protect yourself from death, bodily harm, rape, sodomy, robbery, and burglary, and includes provisions to protect property. This can be either in or outside a dwelling.

[pnwmom]

395. There is ZERO evidence so far that the injured girl participated in any burglary.

And she was hit in the back of the head while outside of the building in some bushes.

The shooters weren't protecting anything when they shot her. They were grossly negligent, shooting into the darkness.

There is nothing in that law that would protect someone who carelessly shot out into the dark.

[HooptieWagon]

419. "Zero evidence"? Bwahahaha!

She went to the cabins with the boys. She remained there the entire time during the break in. One of the boys was her boyfriend. She had been with them the entire evening, its a safe assumption she was aware or even participated in the planning of the break ins. The boys wouldnt have brought her if she wasnt aware, too risky she would make noise, wander off, or otherwise get in the way. That is plenty to make her an accomplice. Of course, it may yet turn up that she also left fingerprints inside or on the stolen stuff... or that she participated in previous crimes with the boys.

It amazes me your continued insistance on the girls innocence despite the evidence against her. Do you honestly believe a teen girl is incapable of committing a crime? First time Ive ever heard the dumb blonde defense... "oh shes too pretty to be a criminal, and much too stupid to realize her boyfriend and his buddies were committing break ins right before her eyes". Geesh...

[gejohnston]

420. you don't get it

it isn't that she is blond. She is athletic, from a "nice middle class" home, good student. If the facts were exactly the same but Moody was not on a sports team, lived a trailer park, and had purple hair or wore "redneck" clothes, she would be guilty of something.

[HooptieWagon]

422. Oh, I see.

An athletic teen from a nice home would never have a boyfriend described as "violent and a danger to society" by an assistant DA, and certainly would never do drugs and committ armed burglary with him. No, "nice" girls only have harvard pre med students for boyfriends... and they camp on islands innocently roasting s'mores and singing girl scout campfire songs when swarms of deranged drunken fishermen burst into camp, and in a fulisade of gunfire brutally and deliberately shoot her in the back of her head. And the police and DA are deliberately covering it up. OK, thanks. I hope I havent forgotten anything. Ill try and remember that meme when dealing with hysterical DU posters.

[pnwmom]

428. Not to me. I think she and Trayvon were both the victims of trigger-happy vigilantes.

Trayvon, unlike Summer, wasn't with anyone else who might have been carrying on criminal activities. But neither of the two 17 year olds in any way deserved what happened to them.

[beevul]

401. Really?

"Gun owners have collectively proven they can't handle them responsibly."

How have 80 million plus gun owners proven that, eh?

It seems to me youd need far more than 13000 firearm homicides to make that claim about 80 + million gun owners in any way that was representative of reality, accuracy, or objective truth.

"More evidence that having a gun creates the jackass!"


You sir, are out there...way out there...

[Marengo]

475. Would you extend this course of action to objects/devices used as weapons?

Or only to those designed as weapons, such as firearms?

[pnwmom]

193. Did I miss a trial? Those teens are still innocent until proven guilty, aren't they?

Why the rush to the judgment that they were burglars?

There is only one FACT that we know absolutely for sure: and that is that a 17 year old girl was hit in the back of the head by someone. In the back of the head.

And the strangest part is, the police have YET to name the three men involved in the shooting. Who are they protecting, and why?

[Atypical Liberal]

230. Of course they are.

Why the rush to the judgment that they were burglars?

All I'm judging at this point is that they have been arrested for 1st-degree burglary and will be charged as adults since they had a weapon at the time of committing their alleged crime.

I'm judging that police deputies say that a door and window was smashed in on one of the properties.

[PavePusher]

314. That's rich. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

237. Kids being armed robbers.

You'll note that the 3 boys involved have been charged as adults for committing 1st-degree burglary, which means a weapon was involved in the commission of the crime.

And yes, in Alabama, you can legally be shot for doing that.

[chrisa]

425. Burglarizing a shack while holding a rifle is "kids being kids?"

Somehow I don't remember doing that when I was a teenager.

[baldguy]

430. You didn't even bother to read the story in the OP, did you?

The victim DID NOT commit burglary. The victim WAS NOT holding a rifle.

Stop parroting RW NRA stupidity. You'll be a lot better off.

[rl6214]

93. I certainly would not have fired if she were 15-30 ft away but

Last edited Tue Apr 17, 2012, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

a 17yo should NOT have been out at 4am or attempting to burglarize ANYTHING.

[baldguy]

122. The murder victim **wasn't** "attempting to burgalarize ANYTHING".

Or are you advocating a fascist law code where collective guilt & punishment is the standard?

[Clames]

131. She's not dead yet..

...so please get your facts straight before starting your dance...

[baldguy]

134. Shot in the back of the head, cerebellum & cerebrum turned to jelly.

The only part working is the brain stem. She's dead. Her body just doesn't know it yet.

[Clames]

136. Let's wait for the medical professionals...

...to make that decision. You obviously have no such qualifications.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

138. "no such qualifications"

He might, we don't know for sure. If he is a doc, he must be a surgeon or an ME judging by the bedside manner.

[pnwmom]

190. The reports are very grim. But whether she is a murder victim

or just permanently and severely brain damaged, she's still a victim.

She was hit in the back of the head, while not attacking anyone.

[HooptieWagon]

202. True, she didnt attack anyone. She was merely an accomplice to armed birglary.

[pnwmom]

205. Did I miss a trial? Who has been convicted of burglary or of being an accomplice?

All we know for a fact is that someone shot her in the back of the head. Everything else is allegation and supposition.

We don't even know the name of the "gentlemen" shooters, which seems very suspicious. Why are the DA and the sheriff covering up for them?

[HooptieWagon]

214. They were charged with armed burglary

at the conclusion of the sherriffs investigation. Its going to be difficult to dispute that, since they were there, they were armed, and there was evidence of a break in. Of course, if the girl dies murder1 will be added to the charges since she died during the commission of an armed felony.

[pnwmom]

216. How do you know the "evidence" was not from a previous break-in committed by other burglars?

Alternatively, how do you know the "evidence" (a broken window, etc.) wasn't created by the shooters after realizing they had made a horrible mistake shooting this girl?

Why are you swallowing the shooter's story, hook, line, and sinker? I guess you really don't believe in having an actual trial.

But aren't you at ALL curious about who the shooters are and why the police have been identifying everyone but them?

And aren't you curious about whether the police bothered to take blood samples to test the shooters' blood for drugs and alcohol?

[HooptieWagon]

245. I suspect the sherriffs can tell when a door has been recently kicked in

[pnwmom]

334. They couldn't tell if it had been kicked in by someone else a few days before.

And they couldn't tell if one of the gunmen kicked it in himself in order to provide an excuse for the shooting.

I'm NOT saying that's what happened. But it's as plausible as anything else, since few facts have been released yet.

[oneshooter]

388. They have had a trial, you have already given them one, right here in DU.

And you have found them guilty, when do you want them to be executed?

You are sooooooooo progressive, yes you are.


Do they get an appeal? Or is it straight to the gallows for them?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

179. You are right, someone needs to train more for shooting teenager in back of head.

Last edited Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Christ

[rl6214]

149. "The murder victim **wasn't** "attempting to burgalarize ANYTHING"."

The young lady was out at 4am along with a group of young men and the young men were attempting to rob the cabins at the fishing lodge. Hiding out in the bushes (as lookout?) certainly does not leave her free of guilt.

[Hoyt]

180. Damn right. Any teenager rolling a front yard should fear the yahoo with a gun, crummy life,

and gun laws that favor those callous enough to shoot teen in back.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

181. "rolling a front yard"

What does that mean?

[ileus]

231. I suppose he thinks they were doing lawn maintenance

I rolled my yard 3 times this spring.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

243. Pardon my...

...landscaping ignorance but what is "rolling"?

[ileus]

277. you pull a big weighted roller

Behind your mower and it smooths out the surface of your lawn.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

283. thanks :)

[pnwmom]

191. The attempted burglary has NOT been proven. For all we know, those kids were just in the wrong place

at the wrong time -- until the courts decide they are guilty, they are still innocent. We don't know what happened -- it could be that, because the cabins had a history of being burglarized, the fishermen heard some noise and got a little trigger-happy.

But you're all set to make the shooting victim -- a girl shot in the back of the head -- a lookout.

Nice touch.

[HooptieWagon]

204. No, not proven. Merely what the sherriffs report says.

And I guess the teens will be charged with armed burglary. And if the young woman dies, theyll be charged in her death.

[pnwmom]

207. And meanwhile, the DA isn't even bothering to tell us who the shooters were,

and has already decided that there isn't enough evidence to bring charges against them. Remind me never to visit a state where it's okay to shoot non-threatening bystanders in the back of the head.

[HooptieWagon]

209. He didnt know she was there likely. It was dark.

He was firing warning shots in the direction of armed tresspssers committing burglaries. And of course, if she hadnt been an accomplice, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Just because shes a pretty blonde doesnt excuse her from responsibilty.

[pnwmom]

219. There is NO evidence that she was an accomplice to anything. Even if there was an actual

burglary attempt, that doesn't mean she knew that would be happening, or that she participated in it. Let's pretend that you're right and a burglary was in progress. It was 4 am and she was on an isolated island with three boys. What was she supposed to do? Where was she supposed to go, if she didn't want to be involved? Maybe hide in some bushes? Maybe she thought that would be a good idea . . . .

The adult moron who fired a "warning shot" out into the darkness -- at head level -- should be facing charges now. But this is gun country, so I guess he won't be.

[HooptieWagon]

256. She was at the scene.

That makes her an accomplice, whether or not she was holding the gun or kicking in the door. She made a series of increasingly bad decisions during the evening. Being blonde and pretty doesnt absolve her from responsibility for those bad decisions.

[pnwmom]

266. Wrong. Being at a scene doesn't make you an accomplice, unless you had prior knowledge

of the crime or actually participated in it. Being physically present isn't the same as being a participant.

And there is no evidence of any bad decisions she made over the course of the evening. For all any of us knows at this point, she was asking the boys to take her home.

And even the boys are still innocent. No trial has yet taken place. It is up to the state to prove the charges, and that hasn't happened yet.

What I want to know is why the names of the adult male shooters have not yet been released. Who is the "gentleman" the sheriff is protecting?

[Atypical Liberal]

319. I think it's pretty clear that Summer was with the boys.

It seems pretty clear thus far that Summer and 4 boys went to this secluded area, supposedly to "dig up frogs and shoot aligators", which is why they brought a gun.

From what I gather, alligator hunting season is in August, so their story doesn't quite add up or they were illegally hunting.

Anyway my guess at this point is that Summer went along with these boys and the boys decided to break into one of these cabins. Summer may or may not have thought this was a good idea but evidently was hiding in some bushes during or after the commission of the crime.

I guess we will have to see what the 3 boys say about Summer's involvement.

[pnwmom]

322. Right, she was with them. But that doesn't mean she approved of what they

may or may not have been doing, or that she didn't ask them to take her home.

She was on an island (most of it Federal property, by the way, not private property) without cell phone service. What was she supposed to do if one or more of the boys started to act out?

[rl6214]

386. the "morons" on the anti-gun side say all the time to just fire a warning shot, including a thread

last week that said the homeowner should fire a warning shot into a door that had people standing behind it so make up your mind, do you want a warning shot or don't you? And it dosen't matter what level it was fired at, what if she was kneeling or standing on something? A warning shot is stupid but you anti-gunners always say the should be shot.

[pnwmom]

396. I've never said anything about a warning shot before,

but if one had to be done, why couldn't the shooter have just shot into the ground a few feet in front of him?

[WinniSkipper]

416. Wrong place, wrong time, and they were armed

You keep leaving that part out. And if she was really hiding in the bushes, why would she be hiding if she wasn't doing anything wrong?

Sounds like she may have heard people coming and tried to hide? Or do you think she was hiding because of kids breaking in? Take your choice and let's go from there.

And as a precursor - let;s assume she was innocent and terrified as you have repeatedly claimed. Terrified of what?

[pnwmom]

206. I guess "innocent till proven guilty" doesn't mean

anything to you?

Shouldn't we at least have an investigation first?

[HooptieWagon]

211. No, because Im posting on a message board,

Not serving on a jury. It appears the investigation is almost complete... charges are upgraded to 1st degree burglary, because the teens were carrying a rifle.

[pnwmom]

218. Surely you realize that the teens could still be found not guilty.

What about charges against the shooters, who haven't even been named yet?

Are you satisfied that that investigation also seems to be complete? That apparently it's okay in Alabama to pursue an unarmed teen and shoot her in the back of the head?

[HooptieWagon]

247. Pigs can fly, too.

Look, the "innocent" pretty blonde you are so desparately defending made a series of bad decisions that night, some criminal. She lied to her mom about her whereabouts. She was out by herself with 3 young men doing drugs and drinking. They were armed. They decided to break into some cabins. Were not talking about Snow White here... more like a Ma Barker wannabe.

[moobu2]

208. UPDATE: Charges upgraded for 3 teens in fish camp case (and more)

This report say's the shooters heard the break in noise and had to cross the river to get to the area where they began shooting. They weren't in the buildings or even in the immediate area. wow.

"Three men on the island heard the teens breaking into one fish camp, deputies say those men had to cross a small river to get to the fish camp where the teens were. They began shooting. Moody was hit in the back of the head. She remains in critical condition at USA Medical Center."

http://tinyurl.com/89kxh8s

And this report says the teen went to the island to dig for frogs and shoot alligators.

"Baldwin County Sheriff's office spokesman Maj. Anthony Lowery said it is believed the youths had gone to the island to dig for frogs and shoot alligators and had a firearm for that purpose."

http://tinyurl.com/85nxn4r
The teens were in possession of a deadly weapon so the charges were upgraded to 1st degree burglary and they are charged as adults as well. The district attorney says the shooter will not be charged.

[HooptieWagon]

210. The men were in a cabin on the island.

There was a creek on the island to cross to investigate the break in. It wasnt the large river they had to cross. See the satellite picture upthread.And at least one man was a caretaker, its logical to assume he was authorized to be on the island.

[pnwmom]

221. They deputy said they left their campground and got into a boat to cross the "small river."

Then they got out of the boat and pursued the teens on foot.

This doesn't qualify for self-defense -- or it wouldn't in any moral world.

[moobu2]

223. I think it's peculiar that authorities released tons of information

about Summer Moody right away and released a lot of other details as well but failed to mention the shooters weren't even on the same land mass as the person they shot. Usually, when the subject is a minor, authorities are reluctant to release personal information about them.

[pnwmom]

335. I agree. And they still haven't told us who the shooters were or if they have any records

or if they were drinking.

[Clames]

249. In any moral world...

...the teens would have been home and not causing trouble in the first place. So much for that argument.

[HooptieWagon]

262. +1

Its an unfortunate tragedy, but the teens bear the responsibilty for their actions leading up to it.

[pnwmom]

220. It's disgusting that if the shooter did pursue these kids, to the point of crossing a river, that he

is not going to be standing trial. Let him prove his innocence in court.

But we don't even know his name! Who are they hiding?

I hope Summer's parents go after him in a civil suit.

[Hoyt]

235. I'm with you. It's one thing if the teens kicked down the door of the "fishermen's" cabin.

But, it appears these guys just went on a hunt (got tired of fishing). If that cabin was unoccupied, I bet there was not a lot there to steal. Certainly, not a lot there to warrant this.

Even if it was occupied and the men were sleeping inside, I question how they hit the girl. I guess just one of those wild shots that pro-gunners tell us never happens.

[HooptieWagon]

259. The men were caretakers.

Apparently the island is private property. The men were there to watch over it. Within their rights under Alabama law to use deadly force to protect their lives and property. However, they did not aim at boys, they fired two warning shots at them. It appears they didnt know girl was there. Had the kids been merely camping on the beach, obviously lethal force not justified. Since the kids were caught in the act of armed burglary (sherriffs say they had a rifle), the responsibility for the consequences lies with them.

[Hoyt]

264. Not in my opinion. Lots of things are legal, yet not right.

There is not a lot of "property" I and many others find worth shooting someone over. Unfortunately, there are a lot of callous people and they tend to love guns.

[AH1Apache]

268. This coming from someone

who want citizens to confront and hold legal CHL holders so the police can "check their papers", or chase them down the street to embarrass them, or my very favorite, he claims to have singlehandedly disarmed some so-called redneck t-baggers and threw their guns in the bushes.
Who gives a fuck what you think is legal, yet not right.

[Hoyt]

270. At least I don't view our society as a war zone.

[AH1Apache]

390. And neither do I Hoyt.

[Atypical Liberal]

303. Well, the people of Alabama think it's right, and that's why it's legal.

Right now, Alabama law allows the use of deadly force to defend property.

Anyone who doesn't want to die over property had best not try and steal any.

[pnwmom]

338. That's not the opinion of the Alabama criminal DEFENSE attorneys interviewed on TV.

So I suggest you don't try to test your interpretation of that law.

[Atypical Liberal]

342. Like I said, I'm not an attorney. But I can read.

And the law seems pretty clear to me. It's not written in legal-eze, and it's not very long.

It seems pretty clear that if you reasonably believe someone is about to or is committing burglary, of any degree, you can use deadly force to stop them.

I think the only thing that might be ambiguous is what defines the start and stop of the crime of burglary. In other words, if they are in the process of absconding with property is this still part of the commission of the crime of burglary.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

391. FYI

A supporting opinion:

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death… In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one's goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." (There are three conditions under which legitimate self-defense must lie- ) "That he who is the target of the force is an aggressor and an unjust aggressor… That the object of the defense is an important good, such as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods… (and) That defensive violence is proportionate to aggression.” (Under these conditions,) “One is also allowed (not required) to kill other people's unjust aggressor." Thomas Aquinas, Dizionario ecclesiastico

[HooptieWagon]

320. And they didnt intend to shoot them.

Just to fire warning shots to chase away armed burglars. Didnt know girl was hiding nearby.

[pnwmom]

339. How is it that you are so clear on the intent of everyone involved?

You know what the shooters intended. You know what the girl intended. You must have amazing powers of mind-reading.

[pnwmom]

337. Wrong. Most of the Island is Federal property. And only one man has been said to be some kind of

caretaker -- but not of the whole Island. And it's not clear at all that he was a caretaker of the property where the girl was shot.

[pnwmom]

330. The men weren't sleeping inside. They left their own place, crossed a "small river" to another camp,

because they had heard sounds and wanted to investigate. Then they started shooting.

[Atypical Liberal]

333. This is legal under Alabama law.

As I read the law, in Alabama, people are allowed to use deadly force if they reasonably believe someone is committing burglary. These men had reason to believe a burglary was taking place, and they went to investigate, and (apparently) reasonably believed they discovered a burglary taking place.

[pnwmom]

343. They aren't allowed to use deadly force against an innocent bystander.

And the local CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorneys say they doubted the circumstances here would have justified it, even if Summer had been involved in a theft.

[Atypical Liberal]

347. So the question becomes, was Summer an innocent bystander?

So the question is, was Summer an innocent bystander or an accomplice? We don't know yet.

I imagine this might go the same way if, while shooting at a burglar, you accidentally shot and killed someone in the house/apartment next door.

But I think you're going to have a hard time convincing a prosecutor or a jury that Summer was an innocent bystander, unless she was coerced somehow to go to the island with the boys and their gun.

[pnwmom]

350. There are a lot more questions than that.

Were the teens actually committing burglaries, or were the shooters just afraid that that was what they were doing?
Did the teens actually break that door down, or did some other burglar do it on a previous day? Or did a shooter do it to justify his shooting of Summer? Do the shooters have clean criminal records? Did anyone take blood/alcohol tests of the teens and of the shooters?

What are the names of the "gentlemen" shooters and why haven't they been released yet?

[Atypical Liberal]

358. I think the answers to some of those are pretty obvious.

Were the teens actually committing burglaries, or were the shooters just afraid that that was what they were doing?
Did the teens actually break that door down, or did some other burglar do it on a previous day? Or did a shooter do it to justify his shooting of Summer?

Right now there are 3 people who have been charged as adults for 1st-degree robbery. While they have only been charged, and not convicted, it appears that if there was enough evidence to reasonably believe it was necessary to charge them there was probably enough suspicion for the shooters to also reasonably believe there was a burglary taking place.

And that's all that has to happen here. The shooters need only demonstrate that they reasonably believed that someone was committing a burglary, and they are allowed to use deadly force to stop it.

[pnwmom]

361. The law that you quoted justifies deadly force for self-defense or defending other people.

And it justifies deadly force if you're in a dwelling and someone else breaks in.

It does NOT justify deadly force if you're outside of a building and you shoot into the darkness and hit someone in the back of the head.

[Atypical Liberal]

364. It also justifies deadly force for stopping burglary.

And it justifies deadly force if you're in a dwelling and someone else breaks in.

Yes, it does. It also justifies deadly force to prevent burglary of any degree.

It does NOT justify deadly force if you're outside of a building and you shoot into the darkness and hit someone in the back of the head.

If it can be shown that the shooter reasonably believed that that someone was committing or about to commit burglary, then you are incorrect.

There was a case posted here just a couple of weeks ago where a man was acquitted of criminal and civil charges for shooting a home invader in the back.

http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-3-23.html

Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

[pnwmom]

433. More info on this from the fisherman's attorney today.

The fishermen weren't defending themselves, or any property. They were firing "warning shots" in order to stop them from "scattering."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002585410#post13

[HooptieWagon]

415. You are incorrect.

The entire law is cited in post 240. Burglary of any degree is among crimes that may be met with deadly force. Doesnt matter inside a building or not, doesnt matter if your property or not.

[Atypical Liberal]

238. Probably won't happen with Alabama law.

In Alabama, you can use deadly force to stop robbery and burglary of any degree, and you cannot be arrested for it unless there is probable cause that the shooting was unjustified.

Since it seems undeniable at this point that there was, in fact, an armed robbery taking place, this seems unlikely.

[moobu2]

285. There wasn't an armed robbery.

The buildings the teens allegedly broke into were unoccupied. Since robbery means taking someones property by force or threat of force. A robbery didn't happen. The 3 men who shot the girl weren't even on the same land mass when the alleged burglary occurred, no one was. Someone would have to be present in order for it to be a robbery.

[Atypical Liberal]

297. Doesn't have to be armed robbery.

There wasn't an armed robbery. The buildings the teens allegedly broke into were unoccupied. Since robbery means taking someones property by force or threat of force. A robbery didn't happen. The 3 men who shot the girl weren't even on the same land mass when the alleged burglary occurred, no one was. Someone would have to be present in order for it to be a robbery.

The 3 boys have been charged with 1st-degree burglary.

Alabama law allows for deadly force to prevent all degrees of burglary. It doesn't even have to be your property.

[moobu2]

329. Yeah and Alabama's a very backwards assed place too

[Atypical Liberal]

331. In some ways, sure.

But in others, we are quite advanced. For example, in Huntsville we have the highest per-capita number of PhDs in the country, due to our work with the space program and military.

[PavePusher]

368. Ah, regional bigotry. The last refuge.... n/t

[HooptieWagon]

248. Pretty blonde was committing armed felonies

after a night of doing drugs and drinking with 3 male teens. If she dies, the boys will be charged with murder. I doubt theres a jury stupid enough to find them innocent. You seem to be the only person defending armed criminals.

[Atypical Liberal]

327. They cannot be prosecuted with a civil suit.

I hope Summer's parents go after him in a civil suit.

Per Alabama law, assuming that the caretaker and his friend reasonably believed that someone was committing burglary (and that seems reasonable at this point), then they cannot be arrested nor can they be prosecuted either criminally nor in a civil case.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

I think it's going to be awfully hard to say that the caretaker and his friend unlawfully used deadly force when there were in fact armed burglars present.

[pnwmom]

340. Obviously they can't be criminally prosecuted with a civil suit, but they can be held accountable

in the only way that is left to this family.

The family would be on solid legal ground arguing that these men were responsible for chasing these teens down and firing at head level into the dark.

[Atypical Liberal]

345. No, please read the law.

&quot d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful. "

If you lawfully use deadly force, you cannot be arrested nor prosecuted by either a criminal nor a civil action.

Obviously they can't be criminally prosecuted with a civil suit

Also, this statement doesn't make sense. There are criminal cases brought forth by the state, and there are civil cases, brought forth by individuals.

According to Alabama law, people who lawfully use deadly force cannot be prosecuted by either kind of case.

[pnwmom]

353. But that wouldn't apply in the case of hitting an innocent bystander. She didn't do anything --

that we know of so far -- that was specified in the law. The shooters could still be held liable in a civil case for her injury.

[gejohnston]

356. the police think it was from a warning shot

which means, they don't know. Until the bullet is recovered out of Ms. Moody, they don't know. There is no evidence to charge the three adults with anything at this point. Once they learn which gun the bullet came from, that will change. Since we are just sitting around speculating, the bullet could have came from one of the kid's gun that accidentally went off.

[pnwmom]

357. I wonder how long it will take to get the ballistics results?

But why would that prevent the police from naming the adults who were present and, at the very least, witnesses to what happened?

[Atypical Liberal]

359. I think it's going to be hard to make a case that she was an innocent bystander.

She was clearly with the boys, and they have been charged with 1st-degree burglary.

Unless she was coerced to go with them, it's going to be hard to make a case that she was an innocent bystander.

If the boys really were committing armed burglary, and she went with them willingly, it's going to be hard to make a case that she was an innocent bystander.

[Atypical Liberal]

240. Alabama allows deadly force to prevent robbery and burglary of any degree.

Note that the section is entitled "Use of force in defense of a person.", but the law also covers defense of property.

In Alabama, you can use deadly force to prevent robbery and burglary in any degree, and you cannot be arrested for doing so unless there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-3-23.html

Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

[Callisto32]

246. Thank you.

[pnwmom]

355. To "prevent" is legally very different from "after the fact."

Even in Alabama, even with an actual burglar (which no one has proven Summer or even the boys to be), shooting a retreating burglar is not covered by this statute.

The shooters left their own campsite to chase the teens. That makes the shooters the aggressors -- like George Zimmerman. They weren't defending themselves, they were shooting at the teens because they thought the teens might have just burglarized a building. The shooters weren't defending themselves when they shot a girl in the back of the head -- they've made no claims that the teens were threatening them. And they weren't "an occupant of a dwelling" of any sort, the shooting took place outside.


(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

[Atypical Liberal]

362. We don't know that yet.

The shooters left their own campsite to chase the teens.

We don't know that it happened like you put it. It could be that the shooters left their own campsite to investigate burglary of property under their charge, and while so doing came across the armed burglars.

The shooters weren't defending themselves when they shot a girl in the back of the head -- they've made no claims that the teens were threatening them.

They don't have to make that claim - Alabama law provides for the use of deadly force against someone they reasonably believe is committing or is about to commit robbery in any degree.

And they weren't "an occupant of a dwelling" of any sort, the shooting took place outside.

They don't have to be in a dwelling of any sort.

You stopped one section short in your quoting of the law. You left out this part:

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

If the burglars had, in fact, just gotten done burgling, it's going to be pretty hard to show that the shooters did not reasonably believe that another person was committing or about to commit burglary.

[HooptieWagon]

380. Not to mention the burglars were armed,

and could have opened fire at any time. These werent harmless, innocent kids goofing around, as one poster hysterically insists on painting them as. These were armed criminals committing felonies.

[pnwmom]

398. No one has ever shown the girl was armed, or that she was an accomplice.

The shooter was such a tough guy, he managed to hit a girl in the back of her head.

[gejohnston]

400. what evidence do you have it was intentional?

What evidence do you have the bullet was fired from any of their rifles?
the latest.
http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/area_news/article_b8481356-8979-11e1-9f81-0019bb2963f4.html

[HooptieWagon]

410. She is hysterical.

I guess she refuses to believe a pretty blonde is capable of being a part of an armed criminal gamg, despite all the evidence.

[pnwmom]

436. The evidence that came from the mouth of one of the fishermen's own attorneys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002585410#post13

[HooptieWagon]

409. And OJ didnt kill his wife and RG

and Casey Anthony didnt kill her daughter, and Dick Cheney didnt order the outing of a CIA agent, and Reagan was completely unaware of Iran/Contra, etc. I guess some people hystericall cling to their agenda despite all evidence to the contrary. In your case, there is zero evidence the girl was unaware of the crimes her boyfriend and others were committing, zero evidence she was forced there against her will. All the available evidence points towards her participation. Law is quite specific, she doesnt have to be holding the gun or doing the door kicking to be guilty of the same charges as the boys. She was present during whatever planning took place, she was present at the crime scenes. And she will be charged when she recovers. Being a pretty blonde isnt an alibi.

[PavePusher]

370. Quite the contortionist act you've been putting on today.

You should look for a job with these folks:

[AtheistCrusader]

369. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[HooptieWagon]

375. Breaking news...

3 teen boys facing additional charges unrelated to Gravine Island. Assitant DA calls them violent and a danger to society. www2.wkrg.com

Wow, nice group of friends Summer was hanging out with. Lie with dogs, youre gonna get fleas.

Additional info: apparently one of the boys was Summers boyfriend. Its entirely possible she may be involved with other crimes theyve committed.

[pnwmom]

397. Still waiting for the names and criminal records of the "gentlemen" shooters. n/t

[gejohnston]

399. if they had criminal records

as in felony convictions, or domestic abuse we would know the name and they would be facing felony charges for possessing a firearm. Don't give me the "lax gun law in Alabama" shit, it has been federal law since the 1930s.
It may be an Alabama privacy law, you won't know unless someone is charged with something. Maybe the cops won't tell the media. Why is it that important to you? Do you plan on doing some Spike Lee/Roseanne Barr vigilante justice?

[HooptieWagon]

408. Cops probably concerned about threats and harassment

From hysterical types who refuse to believe a pretty blonde could possibly be involved with an armed criminal gang. Cops will continue to piece together what happened, and theres no reason to believe they would cover up for the caretakers if it turns out theyve broken the law. Im curious about the nature of the new unrelated charges, it sounds like theyre serious. Glad that criminal gang is behind bars.

[ileus]

421. are there criminal records?

[HooptieWagon]

423. Connections discovered to previous crimes.

Charges coming soon, according to assistant DA. He described the three as "violent, and a danger to society". Sounds like serious charges are forthcoming. BTW, current bail is 100K for each, maximum punishment for 1st degree burglary is life.

[oneshooter]

426. Why? You have already found them guilty, the trial is over.

Do they get an appeal? If not then straight to the gallows with them. Their names will be on the headstones, you can read them there.

Now don't you feel so very progressive?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[pnwmom]

429. You found the victim, Summer Moody, guilty.

All I'm doing is pointing out that there's another POSSIBLE side of the story that the gun lovers don't seem to want to think about.

[gejohnston]

434. the POSSIBLE is not supported by evidence

No felony convictions among the fishermen because none were arrested for gun possession.
And the three boys? It could have come from the gun they had.

[pnwmom]

435. The bullet came from the gun of one of the fishermen.

One of their attorneys has already acknowledged this. He's also acknowledged that the fishermen fired their shots because the teens were "scattering" and the adults wanted them to stop, so they could call the police on them.

They're not even trying to make an argument for self-defense.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002585410#post13

[gejohnston]

437. you linked to yourself making the same statement

but I finally found it. Well, you don't fire warning shots. No shit, it is not self-defense. It might or might not fall under something else in Alabama, but not self-defense as anyone I know would define it.
But, what the media says and what really comes out in court is often two different things. Be prepared for the truth that nobody likes.

[WinniSkipper]

438. If the situation is as described in your link

...it sounds at worst this is an accident. Since (also from your link) it sounds pretty clear cut there was a burglary going on, it will most likely be the other three teens charged.

[oneshooter]

442. Show me where I said that, or retract your lie.

[oneshooter]

460. I guess I will just add this to the list of lies you tell.

[gejohnston]

458. About your headline. What does this have to do with SYG? Nothing

It has nothing to do with DTR either. The reason they have not been charged is mostly likely because the DA did not know who to charge because who fired the shot. It is common for DAs to not file charges until after the investigation is complete. That is not SYG or injustice. It is because DAs don't like having their asses handed to them by a defense attorney at trial or a judge that laughs his ass off before the trial.

I get the hysteria about SYG because of Zimmerman, but the truth is his case has little or nothing to do with it either.

[moobu2]

474. The DA came out early and said that charges would not be filed against any of the 3 older men

involved in the shooting because the 4 teens were burglarizing this unoccupied house when the shooting occurred etc... In Alabama a person can basically execute someone on the spot for a variety of crimes including burglary. Meanwhile, Summer Moody's family hired an attorney who went to the press and kept them asking questions about the men and now we are where we are today.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

472. Federal investigators have started their own probe...

Federal investigators have started their own probe into a Baldwin County fish camp shooting that severely wounded a teenage girl, focusing on whether felony convictions would have made it illegal for 2 of the men to have guns.Federal investigators have started their own probe into a Baldwin County fish camp shooting that severely wounded a teenage girl, focusing on whether felony convictions would have made it illegal for 2 of the men to have guns.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/04/feds_investigate_whether_campe.html

This is going to be a rather complex situation.

[moobu2]

473. Summer Moody died last night according to her support Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/TeamSummer/260223384073834

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

476. That's a true tragedy. :(