Posted on 09/03/2025 4:52:18 PM PDT by Morgana
It is like walking out in traffic. The law says trafgic must yield, but you are a criple now or dead.
Same for this trio of nincompoops.
Who cares who is to blame. The boy is DEAD.
“ The culture of our founding fathers was one of love and compassion. Particularly for innocent 11 year old boys.”
I suggest you look up some of the punishments that were used on adolescents in the 1700s.
And there was nothing “innocent” about these kids. Innocent kids would have been at home, not harassing their neighbors well after dark.
L
11 year old kids shouldn’t be harassing their neighbors well after dark.
Is it too had they got shot?
Yes.
Would they have been shot if they’d been at home?
No.
L
My questions were general, not particular to the article. It seems your advice was also general and I was interested to hear more. Since you were dispensing information I figured you could also explain it. Perhaps not…
There was never any threat here. Ringing a bell is not a threat. Ringing a bell and running away is also not a threat. Turning around in a driveway - not a threat.
Being annoyed is NOT a threat.
“the grown ups were a little like space aliens to us, messing with them was like throwing rocks at alligators, there was a huge gulf between our two worlds.”
I see your point and understand completely. However even back then we had our limits, we knew what lines not to cross.
It seems today kids don’t know there are lines you don’t cross or just don’t care. Also you’d think there would be parents who watch the news and would say to kids “Don’t do this”.
“I suggest you look up some of the punishments that were used on adolescents in the 1700s.”
I did. Some of this I knew, some I did not.
In the 1700s, adolescent children faced a variety of harsh punishments, including corporal punishment like beatings and whippings, humiliation and public shame through stocks or yokes, and more severe physical methods such as branding for minor offenses in some areas. For more serious transgressions, particularly in Colonial America, children could face capital punishment, and punishments were often intended to be exemplary and publicly inflicted.
Corporal Punishment
Beatings and Whippings:
These were common for minor infractions and were often administered in homes and schools.
Caning and Birching:
Teachers and even prefects used canes and birch rods to punish students for offenses such as being rude or answering back.
Strap/Leather Strips:
These were also used in schools for corporal punishment, according to Quora users.
Humiliation and Public Shame
Stocks:
Offenders, including children, could be placed in stocks, a public form of punishment where they were displayed to humiliate them, sometimes while being pelted by a crowd.
Yokes:
Delinquent children might be placed in wooden yokes, sometimes with another child, to enforce discipline.
Whispering Sticks/Tongue-Tied Devices:
These devices, which forced a child’s mouth open, were used in some schools to prevent them from speaking.
Severe Physical & Other Punishments
Branding:
For some crimes, branding or marking a person’s forehead served as a permanent public display of guilt and a reminder of their crime.
Capital Punishment:
In Colonial America, even children could face capital punishment for serious offenses, a harsh reality of the time.
Fines:
Fines were a common punishment, acting as both a deterrent and a way to extract money from offenders, particularly for minor offenses or failure to attend church.
Context and Intent
Public Example:
Punishments were often public, intended to shame and deter others from committing similar offenses.
Disgrace:
A mark of shame could be a significant penalty, with children often being made to kneel on a form or otherwise publicly displayed.
Harshness:
Punishments were generally harsh and could range from temporary pain to more permanent injury or death, especially in the early stages of the 1700s.
Good question!
The child was shot at 10:55pm Saturday per numerous news reports, some of which were posted here. He was pronounced dead at the hospital just after midnight on Sunday (just a little over an hour later), also according to news reports.
Now maybe the boy had wonderful watchful parents, but they got temporarily distracted while Dad helped a frail elderly grandmother to her car and Mom helped the hostess clear off the table or something and did not realize the boys had slipped off. Or maybe they were terrible parents who simply didn’t even try to pay attention or care. Whatever.
Any reasonable person knows better than to shoot someone, anyone, in the back as they are running away. This guy wasn’t even on his own property when he shot the kid, but standing in a public street in a residential area (think of the danger to others besides the two boys). Very stupid rash — and dangerous — decision. Also uneccessary, as the children were running away.
Maybe you think that boy deserved the death penalty because he played a childish prank just a little before 11pm on a Saturday night, but thank goodness our law doesn’t see it that way. Even if he had been up to no good, he was running away and was well off the guy’s property and *shot in the back*. Our laws don’t allow you to be judge, jury and executioner for whatever “crime” (knocking on your door a crime) you think that kid (or adult) committed when running away from you.
How would you got feel about this? Two 18-year-old students work at a restaurant or ice cream parlor or whatever to help pay their tuition. The place stops serving at 10pm and then they are required to help mop and clean before leaving. They set off for home at 10:40.
While riding along a residential street a drunk driver veers and knocks one young man off his bike and severely injures him. His roommate jumps off his bike to go to his aid. He sees his friend needs an ambulance immediately, but in the confusion his cellphone has fallen into the ditch in the darkness and his injured friend’s has been knocked who knows where.
It’s a quiet residential street with no cars in sight to flag down, so he runs to the nearest house and frantically knocks on the door — three times. No one answers, so he runs back to check on his friend, thinking that he can yell back to the homeowner(s) to please call 911 for an ambulance if they do get around to answering the door. He never makes it to his badly injured friend because the homeowner has snuck out the side of the house and chased after him and shot him in the back at 10:55pm.
You can certainly argue that the guy who shot the kid may have thought he was a robber. At the same time, it could have been the above scenario (which is a true one, but with a much happier ending because the homeowner was not a nutcase or hothead). Or it could have been a kid playing a kid prank.
The point is, you just never know — and it is a *good thing* it’s against the law to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you.
Think what you want, but I think the guy who shot the boy has a few screws loose and is dangerous and should be locked up for the safety of society.
Yes, the kid deserved a stern lecture and punishment, but he did not deserve the death penalty this hothead shooter exacted.
I agree that these days it’s too dangerous for kids to play the childish pranks of old because you never know whether a person in that home might be a hothead or high on meth or blind drunk or mentally ill or whatever and you might get shot. At the same, we can’t get back to living in a civilized society if we think it’s fine for hotheads to shoot kids in the back and allow them to do so with impunity.
I’m quite shocked, really. I thought you believed in the sanctity of human life. Apparently, some children’s lives are more sacred than others in your mind and heart.
A neighborhood resident(s) said kids there were going around in backyards beating on doors.
I bet kids ‘pranks’ on homeowners have subsided, at least for a while.
“Now maybe the boy had wonderful watchful parents, but they got temporarily distracted while Dad helped a frail elderly grandmother to her car and Mom helped the hostess clear off the table or something and did not realize the boys had slipped off. Or maybe they were terrible parents who simply didn’t even try to pay attention or care. Whatever.”
There is no “whatever” in this. They are still the parents. They will belly ache about their kid being dead yet they let him run lose. I think it’s terrible he’s dead but if he’s going to have shitty parents then yes “some children’s lives are more sacred than others” because parents who care about their kids don’t let them FAFO. No those are the “mean mommies” who don’t let their kids do anything yet their kids live to see the next sunrise now don’t they?
East Houston has a violent crime rate of approximately 9.43 incidents per 1,000 residents, which is significantly higher than the national average, placing it in the 12th percentile for safety. The area is considered less safe than 88% of neighborhoods in the U.S.
Somebody messed with your house at night you shoot to kill.
You sound like a 12 year old nerd thinking he sounds tough on the internet.
Answering your door late at night can be fatal, especially in a shithole city like Houston. Manslaughter at worse.
The irony is the cold blooded murder of that child adds to the violent crime rate.
It was perhaps a fearful moment since perhaps other crimes started with the ding-dong-ditch, but the man left the safety of his own property to chase down and shoot a person in the back running away. He is not an executioner no matter how afraid or pissed off he was about the crime in the area.
“Wow, you have very hardened heart.”
In today’s society, one can never tell a “prank” (like the knockout “game”) from a real threat... a gang could case a place by pulling the “ding-dong-ditch game” to see what sort of reaction there is.
Asking where the parents were is a valid question - what’s the Bible say about sparing the rod = hating your son?
Tragedy - and the guy was wrong to shoot a fleeing kid, but he will also pay a price for his actions.
That may be true. But I sure as hell would not leave the safety of my home and property to chase down a fleeing kid and shoot him in the back.
The shooter will pay for being a fool and he hurts lawful gun owners with his hot temper and stupidity.
No way this guy is getting out of this one lightly.
Of course, we have to wait and make sure all the facts we read in media are correct. It is always possible they have the facts wrong.
Murder is pushing it, manslaughter is more likely.
-SB
It was just before 11pm on a Saturday night, why do you keep saying midnight?
…
To justify her ridiculous position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.