This bothers me....

If a homeowner shot a kid for simply ringing his doorbell (without further threat), then he will pay the price as he should. Being licensed to own/carry a gun is not an excuse for poor judgement. Irregardless of the circumstances/ evidance, that homeowners life has changed forever.
 
I have investigated MANY home invasions that began with a simple ring of the doorbell to check to see if the residence was occupied.

Not saying that's what happened here......just pointing out a fact.

Trouble is, until the home is actually invaded you can't shoot people just because they rang your doorbell.
 
Lots of conflicting information about that shooting and the events leading up to it. I wonder who is telling the truth? :confused:

At least I learned a brand new term today: "Ding Dong Ditching"

65-1/2 years old and I'd never once heard of that fun thing to do to people in the middle of the night. If it's so much fun, maybe I should try it on my neighbors. Maybe they'll find it funny too. :confused:
 
Trouble is, until the home is actually invaded you can't shoot people just because they rang your doorbell.

True, so long as they just ring the doorbell.

Here in NV you are permitted to shoot through a door if you have reasonable cause to think it is being kicked in. Happened here Christmas week and the residents had the police on the line when the shooting started. The police spokesman said it was pretty clear on the 911 tape the person outside was determined to get in.

Now the kicker: the deceased was a liquored up law student who got separated from his group and was trying to gain entry to the wrong apartment.
 
The police said after arriving on the scene, it was obvious that it wasn't a home invasion.



He shot the kid in the back as he was running away. Shot him twice, as a matter of fact. He might could have gotten away with saying he fired just to scare the kids and accidently hit one, but he shot twice and hit the target both times. One of the shots went through the kid's liver. I'll be surprised if he isn't charged.

The quotes I read were to the effect that at this point in the investigation the police did not think that it was a home invasion. All well and good, but what matters is what the shooter thought and was it reasonable. The police get to do an investigation, where as the shooter did not have the leisure of assembling facts.

Twenty plus years of Ayoob columns in gun magazines should have demonstrated by now that there are all sorts of ways someone ends up shot in the back even in legitimate self defense shootings.
 
Not sure if this is the story in question; if not, it's certainly close: Pryor Teen Shot While 'Ding Dong Ditching' In Neighborhood - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

Lots of conjecture about what was really going on, but from the multiple stories online, there's not a clear timeline of whether the shooting happened at the time of the event, or some time after when the three kids had returned to a point near the residence. Either way, the honor student involved has paid a serious price for whatever he was up to, and the investigation continues. Let's give the authorities the benefit of doing their due diligence and see where this goes. Justice ain't instant. Can't say there's much substance to this story so far, but could pan out in several different ways. Hard not to speculate, given the available information...but since I wasn't there, think I'll watch'n'see for a spell.
 
Young ones can be very dangerous. Worst one we ever dealt with was an 8 yr old. He was serious about killing his parents. That kid was scary. When the investigation is done..hopefully the full truth will come out. Now what the hell is ding dong ditching? Never heard the term
 
Here in NV you are permitted to shoot through a door if you have reasonable cause to think it is being kicked in. Happened here Christmas week and the residents had the police on the line when the shooting started. The police spokesman said it was pretty clear on the 911 tape the person outside was determined to get in.

Now the kicker: the deceased was a liquored up law student who got separated from his group and was trying to gain entry to the wrong apartment.
*
Best reason to call 911. The odds are tiny that LE will get there anywhere near in time to help, but the recording such as in the case described by Steve can be priceless. Had two incidents Spokane in the last few years that ended up the same way.

As for the decedent, well, I was about to say something really unsympathetic that will cause a lot of bloomer bunching so I'll refrain. To the clued in, my signature file will provide a hint.
 
Last edited:
As tragic as such an even is, you cannot deny the 14-year-old played a big part in his own demise. There is no cure for stupidity, and it often results in premature death. Aggravating and scaring others is truly a stupid thing to do at any age.

Still it does not excuse the person that shot him. When stupid meets stupid, bad things often occur.
 
When stupid meets stupid, bad things often occur.

That really is the whole gist of it...shared ownership!!!! Just like with the Bill Cosby thing...what were those women doing in a married mans hotel room alone with him??? They all knew he was married as well as who he was. Trying to get his autograph???? Not saying what he did was right by no means, but he doesn't have sole ownership of the situation. Just like the shooter in this case.
 
Last edited:
Nothing good ever happens after mid-night. There is enough blame to go around in this case. Why would parents allow a 14 year old out of the house at that hour. The kid is overly stupid for pulling the stunt. Maybe he should have studied his mark a bit more. The shooter is also full of stupid. Deadly force for what at best might be a property crime?

I think the homeowner / shooter is in for a very bad couple of years or more. I hope the kid recovers and that everyone has learned a valuable lesson in responsibility.

LTC
 
I suppose that I am one of those adults who need to rethink my position---however; my position comes from history, not modern rhetoric.
Today is no different than 200 years ago---the mentality may assume that or minds have evolved into some kind of mush.
When a danger is presented--whether real or imagined--in the eye of the one threatened it is very real. A split second decision can be fatal---it can be fatal if the decision is too slow or quick and the dead can be because it was too slow.
The 14 year in Chicago is prime---if it had been a real threat the cop could have been dead before another thought could have crossed his mind.
If you play a stupid game--stupid things can happen----too you.
Blessings
 
I don't know when that term came in.....

At least I learned a brand new term today: "Ding Dong Ditching"

We never called it that. But around 2010 my young son and his friends talked about it. I think the 'Ditch' part comes from the term of getting rid of someone you don't want along. "The other kids invited me to a movie then ditched me."

I also never heard anybody doing this after waking hours.

I have to admit, that with some really bad people my son was associated with the last few years, I was wondering if I should answer the door without being armed. I still haven't shot anybody yet, though.

This has caused a huge dilemma for me. I want to have guns handy for home defense but I can't have anything where people (read 'teenagers') can have access to them.:(:confused:
 
Back
Top