Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 17y/o unarmed girl shot in the head, no charges will be filed due to Alabama's Stand Your Ground. [View all]pnwmom
(108,951 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
476 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
17y/o unarmed girl shot in the head, no charges will be filed due to Alabama's Stand Your Ground. [View all]
moobu2
Apr 2012
OP
Startled by the attempted break-in, two men fired rifles in the darkness at the intruders...
jtuck004
Apr 2012
#34
They weren't just messing around, they are suspected of having committed criminal acts, and.
jtuck004
Apr 2012
#74
And hopefully the investigation of men without permits shooting a girl in the head continues.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#94
No permit required for private property, or rifles, in Alabama, that I can see.
PavePusher
Apr 2012
#124
The girl's attorney brought up the lack of a gun permit at the press conference.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#128
That could have happened the night before, or a few days before. And by other burglars.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#445
Who said the couples checked all the cabins the day before? They said the only reason they heard
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#456
What claims of ignorance are you refering to? You're not very coherent.
Starboard Tack
Apr 2012
#403
So is knowing the difference between reasonable restrictions and gun grabbery.
cleanhippie
Apr 2012
#378
No one was breaking into their own camp area, and there is nothing in the Castle Doctrine
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#215
There is no evidence yet that they were committing burglary, much less armed burglary.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#271
There was a lot of wild speculation by the media in the initial reporting
HooptieWagon
Apr 2012
#453
And if they had shot the one with the rifle, anti's would be screaming, "Why didn't he fire
shadowrider
Apr 2012
#406
You don't know she was "drinking and doing drugs." There has been absolutely nothing in the press
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#306
I already explained this to you. The gunmen had to load the girl up in their boat and take her off
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#326
I'm not telling a lie, I'm saying that there is a possibility that the gunmen were drinking,
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#341
So, teenagers "partying" is now a crime punishable by extralegal summary execution?
baldguy
Apr 2012
#404
It cannot be ignored as one of several increasingly bad decisions she made that night
HooptieWagon
Apr 2012
#411
Not according to two local criminal defense attorneys who were interviewed in this case.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#273
The Alabama criminal attorneys who were interviewed on TV said that isn't true. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#302
There's nothing in that law that says it's okay to shoot bystanders in the back of the head.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#324
Have you seen the sheriff's report? I wasn't aware one had been released. I'd love to see the names
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#328
I repeatedly gave you links when you asked for them. I've seen no link to an actual
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#351
"And since the teens were armed, it wouldnt have been prudent to confront them."
ellisonz
Apr 2012
#402
The fishermen's own attorney doesn't say anything about being afraid because the teens had weapons.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#432
No, the guys who chased the kids on foot and shot one of them in the back of the head.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#43
The shooter wasn't in his home or even in his fishing camp. He followed the teens in a boat.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#156
I don't see evidence that they actually committed a felony. The only one who I'm sure did so
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#11
If the gunmen hadn't heard some sounds, and decided to cross a river to get to them,
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#274
You're the one sounding like a Zimmerman defender. He's the vigilante, just like
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#354
It's the possible drinking of the shooters that is relevant, not of the teen victim.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#417
Amazing, isn't it? The gun owner as judge, jury, and executioner -- all over some stuff. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#96
Not if it means appointing to yourself the power of judge, jury, and executioner
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#158
Again I was replying to the broad statement, which I read as not limited to the specifics of this
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#160
What I read was that the young people had brought a firearm with them
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#167
Report in the media about why the charges were raised to 1st degree
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#233
Their guns were magical talismans protecting them from the demons in the night.
baldguy
Apr 2012
#226
Chasing down suspected burglars on foot and shooting them in the back of the head
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#42
As soon as we know if that actually happened we'll talk - or were you actually there?
DonP
Apr 2012
#58
Here's an interview with some investigator, where he says the teens were chased.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#81
So, if the person standing next to you commits a crime, you should be punished for it?
baldguy
Apr 2012
#108
I've only heard the word "weapon" used. Have you seen an actual claim of a gun?
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#174
The article actually says that no charges have been filed . . . yet. The investigation is ongoing.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#10
She wouldn't be an accomplice unless they were planning to burglarize and she knew that. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#183
I don't know they were drinking. I'm saying my possible scenario about the men is just as valid
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#98
Reports today said that the prosecutor won't be charging the shooter. Maybe we'll never know. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#304
Yes, I'd also like to know if the fisherman who did the shooting was alcohol-impaired.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#49
At 4am in a fishing camp, I'd be willing to bet there aren't too many lights around
rl6214
Apr 2012
#117
Here's a picture of the "slough" they had to cross to get to where the teens were.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#287
That article u linked to just says a 16 Y/O kid was charged for shooting someone.
moobu2
Apr 2012
#32
So you think it is okay to chase burglars down and shoot them in the back of the head?
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#40
And a lesson for yahoos with guns that killing someone when not much is at stake is
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#178
I think that's a reasonable possibility. It's possible the kids were just messing around
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#41
I think it's worse than risky and stupid to chase a teen down and shoot her in the back of the head.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#62
People should not be able to execute others for the crime of taking their property.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#79
The Alabama criminal attorneys who were interviewed on TV said that isn't true.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#288
If you are in your own home, the burglar doesn't have to be confronting you -- correct.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#309
Nothing in that law applies to innocent bystanders, and there's been no evidence
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#323
It's pretty clear that she was with the boys and at least the boys were commiting a crime.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#325
The shooter wasn't threatened in his castle. He was in a fishing camp consisting of some
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#153
I was responding to your broad generalization in the title to post 79...
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#155
Problem is that its hard to tell if the intruders are armed or not
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#170
Again...general comments in response to general comments, and then specifics on this case
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#176
This is a link to an article and video including comments from a two local criminal defense
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#188
So when do you want these men executed? You already have found them guilty.
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#382
But it wouldn't apply in the case where you LEFT your current quarters and got in a boat
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#165
Doesn't matter. Alabama law allows deadly force to stop robbery and burglary in any degree.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#236
Does Alabama law allow people with cocaine trafficking convictions to shoot unarmed teenagers?
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#462
It was the Sheriff who repeatedly used the word "gentlemen" to describe them -- I know
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#466
She was shot in the back of the head. Of course she was hiding -- she was probably terrified.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#61
If what the deputy said today was true -- that the fisherman heard some noises on the other side
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#169
Absolutely. And if you're going to fire a warning shot, shoot it into the dirt at your own feet.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#73
No, no, no, we were told here just last week the warning shot should be into a door that someone
rl6214
Apr 2012
#121
But the anti-gun zealots claimed just last week that you should fire a warning shot into a door
rl6214
Apr 2012
#120
It's not legal for civilians to shoot at "escaping criminals." That's not self-defense.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#104
No, the article specifically referred to a gun permit. I don't know any more than that.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#114
I live in Alabama. No permit is required except for concealed weapons.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#321
It's simple, Simple: if she didn't have a gun she was not a deadly threat, or a lawful target.
baldguy
Apr 2012
#224
Though well I know the passion of the argument, its premature to call them murderers
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#159
Yet another specious attempt to argue that inanimate objects can compel behavior
ProgressiveProfessor
Apr 2012
#154
I did read the story. She was with 3 other boys arrested for 1st-degree burglary - they had a gun.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#229
"Some feet" could be six feet, or 60 feet, or 100 feet. That tells us nothing about distance
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#349
They weren't protecting either lives or property when they shot a person in the back of the head.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#372
The law is quite explicit that lethal force is only allowed when you're protecting human life
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#393
There is ZERO evidence so far that the injured girl participated in any burglary.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#395
Not to me. I think she and Trayvon were both the victims of trigger-happy vigilantes.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#428
Did I miss a trial? Those teens are still innocent until proven guilty, aren't they?
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#193
True, she didnt attack anyone. She was merely an accomplice to armed birglary.
HooptieWagon
Apr 2012
#202
Did I miss a trial? Who has been convicted of burglary or of being an accomplice?
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#205
How do you know the "evidence" was not from a previous break-in committed by other burglars?
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#216
You are right, someone needs to train more for shooting teenager in back of head.
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#179
Damn right. Any teenager rolling a front yard should fear the yahoo with a gun, crummy life,
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#180
The attempted burglary has NOT been proven. For all we know, those kids were just in the wrong place
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#191
There is NO evidence that she was an accomplice to anything. Even if there was an actual
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#219
Wrong. Being at a scene doesn't make you an accomplice, unless you had prior knowledge
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#266
the "morons" on the anti-gun side say all the time to just fire a warning shot, including a thread
rl6214
Apr 2012
#386
They deputy said they left their campground and got into a boat to cross the "small river."
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#221
I agree. And they still haven't told us who the shooters were or if they have any records
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#335
It's disgusting that if the shooter did pursue these kids, to the point of crossing a river, that he
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#220
I'm with you. It's one thing if the teens kicked down the door of the "fishermen's" cabin.
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#235
Well, the people of Alabama think it's right, and that's why it's legal.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#303
That's not the opinion of the Alabama criminal DEFENSE attorneys interviewed on TV.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#338
Wrong. Most of the Island is Federal property. And only one man has been said to be some kind of
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#337
The men weren't sleeping inside. They left their own place, crossed a "small river" to another camp,
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#330
The law that you quoted justifies deadly force for self-defense or defending other people.
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#361
Obviously they can't be criminally prosecuted with a civil suit, but they can be held accountable
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#340
But that wouldn't apply in the case of hitting an innocent bystander. She didn't do anything --
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#353
I think it's going to be hard to make a case that she was an innocent bystander.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#359
Alabama allows deadly force to prevent robbery and burglary of any degree.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#240
Still waiting for the names and criminal records of the "gentlemen" shooters. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2012
#397