Would you rather just let the kid be at the whim of the intruder? How much sympathy should a kid be expected to give to someone who broke into his home?
This could have easily turned into a barricaded suspect with a hostage.
Breaking into a house and threatening a child is pyschopath behavior.
The kid is 11, he is going to need a long time to process what has happen. There was adrenaline pumping, genuine risk to his life and a culture of self defense. Did you expect him to suddenly grab a medkit and approach someone larger and older than him who may not be fully incapacitated and already threatened him?
I don’t expect a kid to do much of anything after shooting a person, intruder or not, not mock them for being in pain of a literal bullet wound.
Granted if the parents taught him how to use a firearm they should also have taught him how to use a medical pack because accidents can and do happen with firearms and he should be able to patch up himself or someone else if an accident does happen.
I never said the kid should have actually gone over and given any kind of first aid, but he should still be taught basic first aid if his parents are teaching him how to use a gun.
It’s still psychopathic to mock someone who you just shot.
Yes a child, not a grow adult with the ability to make perfect judgement calls, shot in the direction of his attacker. Then continued to shoot as the attacker was fleeing the scene.
Don’t be naive, a grown adult who was in a panic in that circumstance would not be viewed as a psychopath, let alone a child.
Can you tell me more about how context isn’t important in this circumstance?
The child told news reporter this after the event occurred. We don’t even know whether or not he laughed like, “heh wow that was scary”. Or maniacally like the Joker.
The correct response when shooting a criminal who broke into your home and threatened you is my, indeed, not to laugh, but to reload and keep shooting.
your life has never been threatened by another person and it shows. the kid probably was feeling a rush of both fear and then self confidence because he successfully defended himself, which manifested in clowning on the fucker who was trying to kill him. it’s very easy for you to judge and diagnose him from behind your screen but if you were in the situation, how do you know you’d act differently? or more likely you’d probably cower in the corner and get yourself killed because you’re too concerned with the intruder’s feelings to do anything about it
He survived. He was shot in the leg and got treatment in the hospital. The child did not stand over him while he was bleeding out. That part was a joke made by someone responding to the article.
Maybe if he hadn’t said something idiotic and then belligerently doubled down, people wouldn’t figure that he must have been an insufferable child who gave his teachers headaches by being obstinate over nothing every day. With an attitude like his I reckon he probably fought tooth and nail against accepting PEMDAS. He should have been more considerate to people at the other end of the computers by not pinching off stupid ideas, but when he voluntarily chose to, he chose to accept criticism of it. I’m not being mean, I’m giving him what he asked for. If I wanted to be mean, I’d say that if I ever decide to kill myself I’ll climb up to his number of chromosomes and jump down to his IQ, but I don’t, so I won’t say that.
The kid is 11, they probably don’t think much about the bigger picture in situations like this and hes probably just proud he’s alive and wanted to be funny cause hes on camera. I’d probably rub the bad idea in their face a bit to if someone broke into my home and threatened my family.
It isn’t like this kid just assaulted a random guy, there was a genuine threat here.
What sort of argument is that. Dude broke into a house. At that point he is a threat and doesn’t magically turn into a harmless person just because they turn around. They might just be jumping into cover to get their own gun. They might be running to a second burglar for help. The first rule in any emergency situation is your safety is paramount. Yours alone. A firefighter won’t jump into a burning building to save a puppy, a medic won’t risk his life to constrain a madman with a knife. They are there to do a specific job - and heroics only looks good on TV or in movies.
Judging situations in hindsight is always so easy. Being in that situation is something else entirely. But it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Again, your safety first - don’t administer aid on a running highway, don’t get closer to burning cars, don’t try to “save” someone getting beaten up. Don’t be a hero.
There is a difference between not jumping into a burning building and not shooting someone running away from you. Once they’re fleeing, shooting them is not self-defense just because you’re afraid they might come back in the future.
If you don’t believe that, when does it stop being self-defense? Maybe they’ll come back a decade from now, then surely it’s self-defense to break into their home and kill them in their sleep to protect yourself.
“When does it stop being self defense?” - not at them turning around. And I’d say you have a right to shoot them till the moment the police come to take over the situation / provide safety for you. Running after someone who is like 500m away to shoot them wouldn’t be self defense anymore obviously. And again - “self defense” isn’t a black and white situation. It’s grey enough where each case needs to be determined individually. But the “bias” belongs with the person whose house they broke into, not with the burglar. A burglar killing someone and saying “they had a gun!!” is 100% murder. A person overreacting / crossing a “line” in self defense deserves leniency if not straight up immunity.
Did you know that people who run away can also run back? People under stress don’t have the foresight to know if the threat is really over.
Discouraging shooting at fleeing people is good, but there will be situations where fleeing doesn’t mean the end of the threat so we can’t say it is always wrong. Like if someone said they would be back (not the case here), I would sure cut the defending person slack for shooting the fleeing person who threatened future violence.
The guy could have broken into the next house over and actually harmed someone. At least with the injury law enforcement was able to catch them.
The intruder had also already threatened to hurt/kill the kid, for all the kid knew the intruder could’ve planned on using the fence as concealment before using their own gun. Maybe the intruder was intending to come back later hoping to catch the kid sleeping and get some kind of revenge.
That’s how the law would treat an adult. “That’s not defending your home, that’s murdering a man who isn’t a threat” is what the adult would be told. They’d want a very good lawyer, they also would have wanted to aim better so there was only their side of the story
We don’t apply the law like that against children* because children don’t have the ability to control themselves or think before acting that adults have.
Your brain is pretty good at ignoring those kinds of reactions when adrenaline is pumping and you are worried about your own safety. Same reason people who are typically nonviolent can throw a good punch if assaulted. We are still animals and we have fight or flight instincts that trigger fast.
Would you rather just let the kid be at the whim of the intruder? How much sympathy should a kid be expected to give to someone who broke into his home?
This could have easily turned into a barricaded suspect with a hostage.
Mocking someone who is bleeding out in front of you is literal psychopath behavior.
Breaking into a house and threatening a child is pyschopath behavior.
The kid is 11, he is going to need a long time to process what has happen. There was adrenaline pumping, genuine risk to his life and a culture of self defense. Did you expect him to suddenly grab a medkit and approach someone larger and older than him who may not be fully incapacitated and already threatened him?
I don’t expect a kid to do much of anything after shooting a person, intruder or not, not mock them for being in pain of a literal bullet wound.
Granted if the parents taught him how to use a firearm they should also have taught him how to use a medical pack because accidents can and do happen with firearms and he should be able to patch up himself or someone else if an accident does happen.
The hell? Do not approach an intruder, get safe and get the police there, in that order.
No civilian should be approaching a wounder intruder. They could have a concealed weapon like a knife or a gun.
When the intruder broke in, they probably had a tough guy attitude and that attitude changed real quick when they felt pain.
Removed by mod
I never said the kid should have actually gone over and given any kind of first aid, but he should still be taught basic first aid if his parents are teaching him how to use a gun.
It’s still psychopathic to mock someone who you just shot.
I was taught first aid in cub scouts by that age. I wouldn’t have done anything to help a threatening adult
I don’t think I would have shouted insults at him, but I wasn’t raised on games where you shoot people
Lol if someone breaks into my home the last thing I’m going to reach out for is a medkit.
Context is everything and you don’t have any. I’d be mocking the meth head who tried to kill 11 year old me as well. This kid is a hero.
Wait the kid shot the man as he was trying to hop a fence and run away? Again, this is the behavior of actual psychopaths.
Yes a child, not a grow adult with the ability to make perfect judgement calls, shot in the direction of his attacker. Then continued to shoot as the attacker was fleeing the scene.
Don’t be naive, a grown adult who was in a panic in that circumstance would not be viewed as a psychopath, let alone a child.
Gotta make sure they keep running.
Context doesn’t help - laughing at someone you shot is extremely disturbing behavior. 10x so for a child.
The correct response is fear/adrenaline/panic or something to that effect.
There is no “correct” response to traumatic events
Can you tell me more about how context isn’t important in this circumstance?
The child told news reporter this after the event occurred. We don’t even know whether or not he laughed like, “heh wow that was scary”. Or maniacally like the Joker.
Or if it was a lie to make himself look macho to his peers at school.
The correct response when shooting a criminal who broke into your home and threatened you is my, indeed, not to laugh, but to reload and keep shooting.
your life has never been threatened by another person and it shows. the kid probably was feeling a rush of both fear and then self confidence because he successfully defended himself, which manifested in clowning on the fucker who was trying to kill him. it’s very easy for you to judge and diagnose him from behind your screen but if you were in the situation, how do you know you’d act differently? or more likely you’d probably cower in the corner and get yourself killed because you’re too concerned with the intruder’s feelings to do anything about it
Speak however you like to someone who just tried to kill you.
Have empathy for all
I can emphatically understand how they feel, doesn’t mean I’m their bud.
Sounds very sheltered of you.
Who’s downvoting this?
It reads like a sign on the wall written in cursive at my aunt’s house.
People who think psychopathic behavior is desirable apparently.
I’ve found those sort of people to be pretty psychotic themselves.
Removed by mod
He survived. He was shot in the leg and got treatment in the hospital. The child did not stand over him while he was bleeding out. That part was a joke made by someone responding to the article.
RIP to the teachers who had to put up with you
That is just a super mean thing to say. There’s another person at the other end of the computers.
Maybe if he hadn’t said something idiotic and then belligerently doubled down, people wouldn’t figure that he must have been an insufferable child who gave his teachers headaches by being obstinate over nothing every day. With an attitude like his I reckon he probably fought tooth and nail against accepting PEMDAS. He should have been more considerate to people at the other end of the computers by not pinching off stupid ideas, but when he voluntarily chose to, he chose to accept criticism of it. I’m not being mean, I’m giving him what he asked for. If I wanted to be mean, I’d say that if I ever decide to kill myself I’ll climb up to his number of chromosomes and jump down to his IQ, but I don’t, so I won’t say that.
There’s a huge difference between defending yourself and mocking a person you just hurt.
The kid is 11, they probably don’t think much about the bigger picture in situations like this and hes probably just proud he’s alive and wanted to be funny cause hes on camera. I’d probably rub the bad idea in their face a bit to if someone broke into my home and threatened my family.
It isn’t like this kid just assaulted a random guy, there was a genuine threat here.
And that threat was running away when the child shot him in the back.
What sort of argument is that. Dude broke into a house. At that point he is a threat and doesn’t magically turn into a harmless person just because they turn around. They might just be jumping into cover to get their own gun. They might be running to a second burglar for help. The first rule in any emergency situation is your safety is paramount. Yours alone. A firefighter won’t jump into a burning building to save a puppy, a medic won’t risk his life to constrain a madman with a knife. They are there to do a specific job - and heroics only looks good on TV or in movies.
Judging situations in hindsight is always so easy. Being in that situation is something else entirely. But it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Again, your safety first - don’t administer aid on a running highway, don’t get closer to burning cars, don’t try to “save” someone getting beaten up. Don’t be a hero.
There is a difference between not jumping into a burning building and not shooting someone running away from you. Once they’re fleeing, shooting them is not self-defense just because you’re afraid they might come back in the future.
If you don’t believe that, when does it stop being self-defense? Maybe they’ll come back a decade from now, then surely it’s self-defense to break into their home and kill them in their sleep to protect yourself.
You’re talking like the dude was a harmless being who did nothing wrong.
Yes, shooting a human being in the back as they’re moving away from you is bad, however this hypothetical doesn’t apply in this story.
“When does it stop being self defense?” - not at them turning around. And I’d say you have a right to shoot them till the moment the police come to take over the situation / provide safety for you. Running after someone who is like 500m away to shoot them wouldn’t be self defense anymore obviously. And again - “self defense” isn’t a black and white situation. It’s grey enough where each case needs to be determined individually. But the “bias” belongs with the person whose house they broke into, not with the burglar. A burglar killing someone and saying “they had a gun!!” is 100% murder. A person overreacting / crossing a “line” in self defense deserves leniency if not straight up immunity.
At this point it’s no longer self defense, it’s society defense.
Did you know that people who run away can also run back? People under stress don’t have the foresight to know if the threat is really over.
Discouraging shooting at fleeing people is good, but there will be situations where fleeing doesn’t mean the end of the threat so we can’t say it is always wrong. Like if someone said they would be back (not the case here), I would sure cut the defending person slack for shooting the fleeing person who threatened future violence.
The guy could have broken into the next house over and actually harmed someone. At least with the injury law enforcement was able to catch them.
The intruder had also already threatened to hurt/kill the kid, for all the kid knew the intruder could’ve planned on using the fence as concealment before using their own gun. Maybe the intruder was intending to come back later hoping to catch the kid sleeping and get some kind of revenge.
That’s how the law would treat an adult. “That’s not defending your home, that’s murdering a man who isn’t a threat” is what the adult would be told. They’d want a very good lawyer, they also would have wanted to aim better so there was only their side of the story
We don’t apply the law like that against children* because children don’t have the ability to control themselves or think before acting that adults have.
Have a bit of empathy for the kid.
*Except when it’s very newsworthy
do you think getting insulted really hurt the intruder more than the bullet?
Removed by mod
Engrish hard.
Removed by mod
No person got hurt here.
Based take, criminals are not people
A bloody body should trigger horror and disgust.
Your brain is pretty good at ignoring those kinds of reactions when adrenaline is pumping and you are worried about your own safety. Same reason people who are typically nonviolent can throw a good punch if assaulted. We are still animals and we have fight or flight instincts that trigger fast.
These people lead boring lives and never felt the effects of adrenalin.
why? what benifit is there to being disgusted and horrified?
Surgeons would disagree.
Oh yes. Totally normal people, those surgeons.
…Yes?
Unless, of course, this kid has access to television.