Middle school boy shot by homeowner "defending cars" in Brookland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

How did he not break the law? I'm confused.

Because if he had he’d have been arrested. QED.

Right.... how long did it take for George Floyd's killers to be arrested? Ahmaud Aubrey? Though he ultimately got off, George Zimmerman wasn't brought to trial until more than six weeks, and after large protests, after kiling Trayvon Martin. How simplistic of you to think just because he wasn't arrested right away a crime wasn't committed.

If his actions had obviously violated the law he would have been arrested immediately.

There is no duty to retreat to claim self defense in DC and the man has a right to defend his property. Due to the proliferation of gun crimes in the city, there is a strong case to be made that there was concern of imminent damages such that force was necessary and obviously if a gun is proportionate to the perceived risk in that situation where someone is breaking into cars at 4 AM with a strong likelihood that the suspect was armed.

From https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/District%20Law%20Pertaining%20to%20Self%20Defense.pdf

You are entitled to claim self-defense:
(1) if you actually believe you are in imminent danger of bodily harm; and
(2) if you have reasonable grounds for that belief.

Could there be a scenario where he confronted the child and it then led to a situation where he reasonably believed he was in danger? Yes, it's possible. But based on the (very limited) facts we have, I wouldn't bet on it. Whether there's enough evidence to convict him is a totally different question.

You are not aware of the facts to assume anything. He has not been arrested and charged because it’s not obvious that a crime has been committed.

I totally agree that we have barely any information. That's why I'm expressing my opinion and guesses on an anonymous website, not taking a case to a judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

Yes he did. You can’t use deadly force unless you are at risk of dying. You can’t use deadly force for a property crime.

That’s not what the law says. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of harm and your response needs to be proportionate to the perceived risk of harm.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that someone in DC that you see breaking into cars on your block at 4 AM is armed?

I don't think it's reasonable to respond by shooting them. The reasonable response is to call the police.

It’s good that you think that but thats not what the law requires.

Sad sad world we live in when so many of you are cheering that a guy can leave his home and execute a kid on the street because he said he felt threatened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

Yes he did. You can’t use deadly force unless you are at risk of dying. You can’t use deadly force for a property crime.

That’s not what the law says. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of harm and your response needs to be proportionate to the perceived risk of harm.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that someone in DC that you see breaking into cars on your block at 4 AM is armed?

I don't think it's reasonable to respond by shooting them. The reasonable response is to call the police.

It’s good that you think that but thats not what the law requires.

Sad sad world we live in when so many of you are cheering that a guy can leave his home and execute a kid on the street because he said he felt threatened.

I don’t think that at all-I think there is probably one poster saying that (which I agree is appalling.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

Yes he did. You can’t use deadly force unless you are at risk of dying. You can’t use deadly force for a property crime.

That’s not what the law says. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of harm and your response needs to be proportionate to the perceived risk of harm.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that someone in DC that you see breaking into cars on your block at 4 AM is armed?

Um, unreasonable? If someone is armed, wants your car, and is okay with harming you, they'll carjack you.

Messing with cars in the middle of the night seems like the act of someone who wants to avoid people.

How can they carjack you if the car is empty and parked and you are somewhere else entirely?

If it's ok for someone to shoot another person on grounds that the other person is doing something and might be carrying a gun while doing it, we might as well just all shoot each other right now and be done with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

Yes he did. You can’t use deadly force unless you are at risk of dying. You can’t use deadly force for a property crime.

That’s not what the law says. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of harm and your response needs to be proportionate to the perceived risk of harm.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that someone in DC that you see breaking into cars on your block at 4 AM is armed?

Um, unreasonable? If someone is armed, wants your car, and is okay with harming you, they'll carjack you.

Messing with cars in the middle of the night seems like the act of someone who wants to avoid people.

How can they carjack you if the car is empty and parked and you are somewhere else entirely?

If it's ok for someone to shoot another person on grounds that the other person is doing something and might be carrying a gun while doing it, we might as well just all shoot each other right now and be done with it.

+1 If the shooter was IN one of the cars this kid tried to break into that is one thing. It’s entirely another thing if the shooter came out of his house and initiated the confrontation.

[Anonymous]

Fox 5 coverage here:

[Anonymous]

Either way, if it's not a person and is things, isn't the issue that people shouldn't be shooting over things? There is no person to protect. I don't know the details and maybe there was a person to protect but we don't hurt people traumatically just to get some particular thing and we don't hurt people traumatically to protect things.

[Anonymous]

Well, if the shooter thought the kid was armed, but was mistaken, it could be a case of self-defense.

You all like to jump to a lot of conclusions w/o the tiniest bit of evidence! Just let the polcie investigate.

[Anonymous]

The Fox article states that there were 2 other people out at 4am with the boy that was shot. There's an argument to be made that if they tried to attack the homeowner, the homeowner is justified in using deadly force.

It also states the homeowner administered CPR to the boy right after the shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fox article states that there were 2 other people out at 4am with the boy that was shot. There's an argument to be made that if they tried to attack the homeowner, the homeowner is justified in using deadly force.

It also states the homeowner administered CPR to the boy right after the shooting.

There's an argument to be made that if something that didn't happen had happened, it would have been different from the thing that actually did happen.

[Anonymous]

Why haven't police named this adult who shot a child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

Yes he did. You can’t use deadly force unless you are at risk of dying. You can’t use deadly force for a property crime.

That’s not what the law says. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of harm and your response needs to be proportionate to the perceived risk of harm.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that someone in DC that you see breaking into cars on your block at 4 AM is armed?

I don't think it's reasonable to respond by shooting them. The reasonable response is to call the police.

It’s good that you think that but thats not what the law requires.

Sad sad world we live in when so many of you are cheering that a guy can leave his home and execute a kid on the street because he said he felt threatened.

He tried to save the kid by administering CPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has the shooter not been arrested? Are citizens just allowed to execute people on the street that they suspect of property theft?

Because he didn’t break the law.

Yes he did. You can’t use deadly force unless you are at risk of dying. You can’t use deadly force for a property crime.

That’s not what the law says. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of harm and your response needs to be proportionate to the perceived risk of harm.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that someone in DC that you see breaking into cars on your block at 4 AM is armed?

I don't think it's reasonable to respond by shooting them. The reasonable response is to call the police.

It’s good that you think that but thats not what the law requires.

Sad sad world we live in when so many of you are cheering that a guy can leave his home and execute a kid on the street because he said he felt threatened.

He tried to save the kid by administering CPR.

The kid needed CPR because he had shot the kid.

[Anonymous]

A 13 year old in 6th grade? Red shirted and held back? Or held back twice? Or not in 6th grade. The photo looked like a 6th grader, might be an old photo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why haven't police named this adult who shot a child?

Probably because there are mitigating circumstances and the adult may also have been defending themselves.