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.
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