Man with shotgun holding kids

[tom88]

Originally Posted by awpitt

The homeowner should not have ordered the kid, at gun point, to come onto his property..

He didn't.

awpitt
Yes it is a fact that the kid was on the ground on the man's property at the time police arrived. It is NOT a fact that the kid was on the man's proprty when the incident started. Omce again, even Fritz did not conclude that the incident stated with the kid on the man's property. Hence Fritz's "close enough" comment

That is not why or how Fritz said that. The comment which you are taking out of context was in reference to the kids story that they "may" not have been on the property. The kid, however didn't come up with that story that night. He waited until two days later to dispute that he was on the property. That night he never said anything about the homeowner calling him over. He told the cops he was lost.

Even you admitted the guy has a right to defend his property with a gun. What the investigation revealed here is that the kid was on the mans property and it was not the fault of the man that the kid was there. You can try and bend and twist it any way you want, but the truth is the woman is trying to turn this conversation into gun control because she is a flaming liberal democrat.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by tom88

He didn't.

You don't know that. You weren't there. Unless you were and haven't revealed that.

Originally Posted by tom88

That is not why or how Fritz said that. The comment which you are taking out of context was in reference to the kids story that they "may" not have been on the property. The kid, however didn't come up with that story that night. He waited until two days later to dispute that he was on the property. That night he never said anything about the homeowner calling him over. He told the cops he was lost.

Fritz's commemt isn't being taken out of context.

Originally Posted by Fritz

“We need to place this in context. This [confrontation] was in the dead of night,” Fritz said, and the one teenager had intruded on the armed resident’s property, “or so close to it that it doesn’t make any difference, in the middle of the night. It’s lucky nothing else happened.”

By making that statement, Fritz opened the door to the possibilty that the kid may have not been on the man's property. If Fritz had concluded 100% that the kid was on the property, he would've never made the "or so close to it doesn't make any difference" comment.

[BernieP]

Originally Posted by tom88

What really makes more sense to you? Does it honestly make sense that in the middle of the night, I don't remember the exact time but I believe it was near midnight, that the homeowner was out on his porch...with a gun...saw a kid on a path and walked from his porch, invited the kid into his yard, then called the police. Is this what you believe?

absent of any charges against the youth, ney, even allegations that he was up to some mischief, yes. I believe the homeowner had a gun and was determined to "defend" his property. He may not have been waiting, he may have heard something.
Had the responding officer found or suspected some crime was being committed the comments from Fritz would have included same.
BTW, I just chased two people walking their dog on the sidewalk in front of my house away with my gun. I felt they and their dog were a threat to my property and dang, they might as well have been on my front yard.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by BernieP

BTW, I just chased two people walking their dog on the sidewalk in front of my house away with my gun. I felt they and their dog were a threat to my property and dang, they might as well have been on my front yard.

Holy crap, dude!

[Wrkn4livn]

SoMdNews.com: Prohibition agents shot down farmer 85 years ago

To an extent.... Sounds like the government agents shot this poor bastard on his front porch for making beer!

[dan0623_2000]

Originally Posted by Wrkn4livn

SoMdNews.com: Prohibition agents shot down farmer 85 years ago

To an extent.... Sounds like the government agents shot this poor bastard on his front porch for making beer!

Being familiar a lot of the local history of St. Mary's County I would venture to say he was probably making a little more than just beer. However that does not justify being shot.
Their were many fortunes made in Southern Maryland during Prohibition.

[Curious99]

The teens were not a threat to the man or his property. I always wondered what the outcome would have been if the teenagers had been armed or if the second teen retrieved a gun and shot the vigilante. Maybe the teens in wildwood should arm themselves and simple disagreements can then escalate into homicides?

[Baja28 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Curious99

The teens were not a threat to the man or his property. I always wondered what the outcome would have been if the teenagers had been armed or if the second teen retrieved a gun and shot the vigilante. Maybe the teens in wildwood should arm themselves and simple disagreements can then escalate into homicides?

Oh so you were there and saw it all. Tell us how the teen would have drawn his weapon and shot the man pointing the shotgun at him before the he pulled the trigger and sprayed him with shot. I anxiously await your first hand account of the incident.

[Curious99]

Originally Posted by Baja28

Oh so you were there and saw it all. Tell us how the teen would have drawn his weapon and shot the man pointing the shotgun at him before the he pulled the trigger and sprayed him with shot. I anxiously await your first hand account of the incident.

I was pointing out the fact that once guns are involved, misunderstandings or disagreements easily escalate. As for specifics…. The vigilante could have missed, maybe the gun wasn’t loaded or he couldn’t get the safety off fast enough. One of the teens could have had a gun in his hand or concealed in a coat pocket and not needed to draw, just raise your hand and shoot, or shot the vigilante while the vigilante was accosting the second teen. Maybe the second teen would have shot seeing the first teen held at gunpoint. Maybe no one would have hit anyone except a bystander. Maybe the vigilante would have shot them both had there been a second gun.
Who knows? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the possible tragic outcomes had the teens been armed.

The vigilante really upped the ante when he came out of that house with a gun and pointed it at those teens. Had he threatened me and, if I could get the drop on him, the ending would have been very different.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by Curious99

I was pointing out the fact that once guns are involved, misunderstandings or disagreements easily escalate. As for specifics…. The vigilante could have missed, maybe the gun wasn’t loaded or he couldn’t get the safety off fast enough. One of the teens could have had a gun in his hand or concealed in a coat pocket and not needed to draw, just raise your hand and shoot, or shot the vigilante while the vigilante was accosting the second teen. Maybe the second teen would have shot seeing the first teen held at gunpoint. Maybe no one would have hit anyone except a bystander. Maybe the vigilante would have shot them both had there been a second gun.
Who knows? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the possible tragic outcomes had the teens been armed.

The vigilante really upped the ante when he came out of that house with a gun and pointed it at those teens. Had he threatened me and, if I could get the drop on him, the ending would have been very different.

Lot of maybe's and ifs. The facts are the facts. A homeowner, not a vigilante protected himself from people who were on his property. All is well that ends well.