A Houston-area dad shot and killed a 17-year-old teenage boy he caught in his teenage daughter’s bedroom.
According to police reports, one of the father’s other children alerted her father that she heard someone in her sister’s bedroom. About 2:20 am this morning, the father went to his daughter’s room with a gun and confronted to 17-year-old boy.
The man’s daughter said that she did not know who the boy was and the father said he told him not to move. The father told police he saw the teenage boy reach for something and then he opened fire - killing the teen in his daughter’s bedroom.
Police said the teenage boy did not have a gun and his 16-year-old daughter later admitted she did know the 17-year-old teen who was in her bedroom.
No charges have been filed against the father, and police investigators are going to turn the information over to a grand jury. The name of the father was not initially released. After the shooting, the father was taken to the hospital to be treated for what was described as an unrelated medical condition.
We do not know what happened in this tragic situation, but we do know that a 17-year-old is dead and there is at least a question about whether the father who shot him was actually threatened - or was he another hot-head with a gun?
It may not be a coincidence that several high-profile shootings have occurred in parts of the country where carrying a gun for protection seems to go beyond protection and includes the right to punish inappropriate actions or to avenge rage.
The case of 47-year-old Michael Dunn, who shot and killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis following a confrontation over loud music in the parking lot of a convenience store in Jacksonville, Florida is another case the attracted national attention. A jury found Dunn not guilty of murder, but guilty on other charges that could lead to very long prison sentence. Sentencing in that case has been delayed for a few days.
Michael Dunn was criticized by many who seemed to think that his life wasn’t actually threatened and that he used his gun to punish a teenager for being disrespectful to him by refusing to turn down the music in the car he was in.
Also in Florida, a 71-year-old retired Tampa police officer is facing second-degree murder charges for shooting a 43-year-old man following an argument over texting in a movie theater. Curtis Reeves shot and killed Chad Oulson following a verbal confrontation over Oulson texting in the theater during the showing of previews prior to the showing of the feature attraction, “The Lone Survivor.”
The retired police officer told police that he felt his life was threatened when the man hit him. However, witnesses, including the police officer’s wife, told police they never saw Oulson hit Reeves. Reeves is being held without bond.
One report indicates that Reeves felt his life was threatened when Oulson threw popcorn in his face. Reeves had a previous encounter with a young woman over texting in the same movie theater. So, is this another recent case of a gun owner who was too quick to use his gun - not for defense of his life - but to punish someone who didn’t listen to him?
Since any criticism of gun owners in America leads to the hysterical assumption that the criticism is motivated by an anti-gun agenda, it is important that I say that I favor legal gun ownership in America and I support the 2nd Amendment. But what I do not support (and what I do criticize) is gun owners who use “stand-your-ground” laws to protect their belief that they can be proactive with their guns to punish someone in a moment of anger or disagreement. Shocking as this may be to many gun owners and worshippers of the 2nd Amendment - that is not part anyone’s right to own a gun in America.
There is a distinct difference between self-defense and using lethal force against those who are disrespectful or disagreeable and any gun owner who does not have a clear understanding of the difference should not own a gun in America - 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.
In all of the recent aforementioned high-profile cases, we do not know exactly what happened, but we should have legitimate questions about whether the claim of self-defense was real - or simply justification for a hot-head with a gun to pull the trigger and hide behind the 2nd Amendment.
In America, you are not allowed to shoot someone who is disrespectful to you or someone who does not obey your orders concerning their conduct. You are only allowed to shoot someone who is literally threatening your life, the lives of your family or your property. There are a few other circumstances when lethal force is allowed, but no one is allowed to shoot someone out of rage, frustration or anger.
We should have a right to be honest about hot-heads and irresponsible gun owners without the extremists assuming that any criticism of gun use is a direct attack on the 2nd Amendment. And extreme gun-control activists should not assume that every gun owner in America is ready to use his or her gun for any purpose other than protection of life and property.
Gun-rights supporters who automatically assume that the use of a gun in a shooting following a verbal confrontation is justified must realize that the actions of the irresponsible gun owners are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment, and with the right to own a gun comes the absolute responsibility to use a gun properly.
Does this opinion inspire you to call me a “liberal,” as if it’s a derogatory label? For those who are so inspired - you might just be calling me a “liberal” on your way to prison!
God Bless America!