What a psychopath. Anyone wanna bet he becomes a cop?
What’s the over/under that his dad is one?
The intruder was his dad
Traveling from the future.
Psychopathy as a diagnoses is bullshit. People disassociate in different ways during traumatic events and as a coping mechanism for heightened stress all the time, and this reads exactly like that.
This does clearly show the kid is well-conditioned for being a cop, though. He seems like he’d be great at ‘just following orders’. at the same time, he’d probably be good as a paramedic or a fireman too, since all those occupations require you to emotionally disassociate to get your job done effectively.
Stfu with that logic, get on the ACAB circlejerk train.
If only the kid was simultaneously defunded and had more training. Then they could have descalated everything.
“I’ve always been a defender of justice. Like when I bravely defended my home at the age of 11”
Would you rather just let the kid be at the whim of the intruder? How much sympathy should a kid be expected to give to someone who broke into his home?
This could have easily turned into a barricaded suspect with a hostage.
Mocking someone who is bleeding out in front of you is literal psychopath behavior.
Breaking into a house and threatening a child is pyschopath behavior.
The kid is 11, he is going to need a long time to process what has happen. There was adrenaline pumping, genuine risk to his life and a culture of self defense. Did you expect him to suddenly grab a medkit and approach someone larger and older than him who may not be fully incapacitated and already threatened him?
I don’t expect a kid to do much of anything after shooting a person, intruder or not, not mock them for being in pain of a literal bullet wound.
Granted if the parents taught him how to use a firearm they should also have taught him how to use a medical pack because accidents can and do happen with firearms and he should be able to patch up himself or someone else if an accident does happen.
The hell? Do not approach an intruder, get safe and get the police there, in that order.
No civilian should be approaching a wounder intruder. They could have a concealed weapon like a knife or a gun.
When the intruder broke in, they probably had a tough guy attitude and that attitude changed real quick when they felt pain.
Removed by mod
I never said the kid should have actually gone over and given any kind of first aid, but he should still be taught basic first aid if his parents are teaching him how to use a gun.
It’s still psychopathic to mock someone who you just shot.
I was taught first aid in cub scouts by that age. I wouldn’t have done anything to help a threatening adult
I don’t think I would have shouted insults at him, but I wasn’t raised on games where you shoot people
Lol if someone breaks into my home the last thing I’m going to reach out for is a medkit.
As the intruder walked down the stairs, “he told me he was going to kill me, f-you and all that,” Chris said.
The final shot hit the man in the leg as he was hopping the fence, the boy said.
The man was taken to a local hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening.
Context is everything and you don’t have any. I’d be mocking the meth head who tried to kill 11 year old me as well. This kid is a hero.
Wait the kid shot the man as he was trying to hop a fence and run away? Again, this is the behavior of actual psychopaths.
Yes a child, not a grow adult with the ability to make perfect judgement calls, shot in the direction of his attacker. Then continued to shoot as the attacker was fleeing the scene.
Don’t be naive, a grown adult who was in a panic in that circumstance would not be viewed as a psychopath, let alone a child.
Gotta make sure they keep running.
Context doesn’t help - laughing at someone you shot is extremely disturbing behavior. 10x so for a child.
The correct response is fear/adrenaline/panic or something to that effect.
the correct response
There is no “correct” response to traumatic events
Can you tell me more about how context isn’t important in this circumstance?
The child told news reporter this after the event occurred. We don’t even know whether or not he laughed like, “heh wow that was scary”. Or maniacally like the Joker.
Or if it was a lie to make himself look macho to his peers at school.
The correct response when shooting a criminal who broke into your home and threatened you is my, indeed, not to laugh, but to reload and keep shooting.
your life has never been threatened by another person and it shows. the kid probably was feeling a rush of both fear and then self confidence because he successfully defended himself, which manifested in clowning on the fucker who was trying to kill him. it’s very easy for you to judge and diagnose him from behind your screen but if you were in the situation, how do you know you’d act differently? or more likely you’d probably cower in the corner and get yourself killed because you’re too concerned with the intruder’s feelings to do anything about it
Speak however you like to someone who just tried to kill you.
Have empathy for all
I can emphatically understand how they feel, doesn’t mean I’m their bud.
Sounds very sheltered of you.
Who’s downvoting this?
It reads like a sign on the wall written in cursive at my aunt’s house.
People who think psychopathic behavior is desirable apparently.
I’ve found those sort of people to be pretty psychotic themselves.
Removed by mod
He survived. He was shot in the leg and got treatment in the hospital. The child did not stand over him while he was bleeding out. That part was a joke made by someone responding to the article.
RIP to the teachers who had to put up with you
That is just a super mean thing to say. There’s another person at the other end of the computers.
Maybe if he hadn’t said something idiotic and then belligerently doubled down, people wouldn’t figure that he must have been an insufferable child who gave his teachers headaches by being obstinate over nothing every day. With an attitude like his I reckon he probably fought tooth and nail against accepting PEMDAS. He should have been more considerate to people at the other end of the computers by not pinching off stupid ideas, but when he voluntarily chose to, he chose to accept criticism of it. I’m not being mean, I’m giving him what he asked for. If I wanted to be mean, I’d say that if I ever decide to kill myself I’ll climb up to his number of chromosomes and jump down to his IQ, but I don’t, so I won’t say that.
There’s a huge difference between defending yourself and mocking a person you just hurt.
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.
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.
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
do you think getting insulted really hurt the intruder more than the bullet?
Removed by mod
Engrish hard.
Removed by mod
No person got hurt here.
Based take, criminals are not people
A bloody body should trigger horror and disgust.
Your brain is pretty good at ignoring those kinds of reactions when adrenaline is pumping and you are worried about your own safety. Same reason people who are typically nonviolent can throw a good punch if assaulted. We are still animals and we have fight or flight instincts that trigger fast.
These people lead boring lives and never felt the effects of adrenalin.
why? what benifit is there to being disgusted and horrified?
Surgeons would disagree.
Oh yes. Totally normal people, those surgeons.
…Yes?
Unless, of course, this kid has access to television.
deleted by creator
The next Rittenhouse or Zimmerman more likely.
How about don’t break into someone’s house?
And ruin every American gun owner’s wet dream?
I’m a gun owner, and I have absolutely no interest in shooting someone ever.
You know how people who say people should eat less meat get a lot of flack because of those annoying vegans who spray-paint leather jackets?
That’s most gun owners. Perfectly reasonable people who have no interest in violence, take gun safety seriously, and store their guns safely.
The thing is part of responsible gun ownership is not wearing a shirt that says “fuck you, I have a gun.” We don’t make guns our entire personality, and we understanding that advertising our gun ownership will make people think we’re like the redneck jackasses you see on TV AND make it more likely to have our cars and homes broken into.
The number one way to get your car windows smashed and everything in it cleaned out is to put a Glock sticker on the window.
Nah, sorry mate. I’d say your stats are wrong. I think the majority of gun owners in US are hateful idiots that would love to shoot someone - preferably a Mexican. There’s no great way to prove this, but it would be foolish to give Americans any benefit of the doubt that leans toward responsibility when stupidity clearly prevails. You might not be a shithead, and perhaps all gun owners are not, but I think the majority of gun owners are. Your Vegan analogy will hold water when the Vegans overwhelming vote for a convicted criminal nitwit platforming on hate and vengeance.
“Source: my ass”
There are around 400 million civilian-owned guns in the US. That’s almost half the entire world’s civilian-owned firearms. The US doesn’t have anywhere close to half the world’s homicides.
With the recent uptick in gun gomocide rates, we reached nearly 20,000 in 2022. That’s obviously very high. But if if we had 20 years straight of those horrifying death numbers, the odds of any specific gun being used in a homicide would still be less than 1/1000.
We have a violence issue in the US, no question, but if 0.01% of guns were used in homicide annually, the murder rate would be doubled. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners aren’t what you say they are.
The US does have a homicide rate 3-10 times greater than other developed countries and a gun death rate 20-50 times greater than other developed countries, and in line with Guatemala, El Salvador etc.
Just because it’s not a strictly linear increase with the number of guns does not mean they aren’t causative.
In fact, that statistic is deliberately misleading because you can only really murder people with one gun at once, so the more guns you own, the less likely any individual gun is to be a murder weapon.
3-10x the homicide rate, yes. The US has a printmaking with violence, and the presence of guns makes violent people more effective.
But saying that makes gun owners more violent than non-owners on average is a leap. In fact, if American gun owners were more prone to violence than the average person worldwide, the homicide rate in the US would be way, way worse. The fact that the homicide rate is as low as it is despite the incredible number of guns is incredible.
I’m all for increasing regulation in the right places.
Background checks need to be fixed. Fake IDs have a 100% success rate against NICS because it checks against blacklists but doesn’t verify the buyer is a real person. If I want to sell a gun privately, on the other hand, I’m not allowed to run a background check on the potential buyer. WTF?
Straw buyers need to be prosecuted. People who attempt to purchase a gun illegally need to be prosecuted. It’s illegal to attempt, but nobody ever gets arrested for it even though there’s an FBI record at NICS for the attempt.
The actual guns used in most crimes need to be better regulated. ARs are less than 1%. Cheap, disposable handguns designed to be bought in bulk by straw buyers like the HiPoint C9 ($100 9mm murder gun) need to be taken off the market.
We need to end permitless carry in the states that have it. Licensed handgun owners have been shown to me asking the least likely people to break the law. Preachers, police, and teachers all get convicted of murder at like 10x the rate of a Licensed gun owner. So bring back the licenses.
But more importantly, we need to address the social issues that breed violence. Poverty, social stratification, institutional racism that drives people into gangs and drugs because there’s no legitimate path out of poverty.
I didn’t call them homicidal maniacs. Most gun owners in the US are under educated hateful bigots because most people in the US are. The only convincing stats on what I was talking about would be percentage of gun owners that experienced a home instrusion, had access to a firearm during the intrusion, and did or did not discharge the firearm. I wasn’t able to locate such data but this would be interesting. American gun owner’s don’t need positive assumptions being made about them in the absence of data.
deleted
No offense. Who cares. If someone is an asshole enough to break into someone’s house then they better be ready.
Unless it’s a cop. Then you should have known better and the state can do with you as it pleases while we clap.
Fuck that. Break in my house and watch what happens. It’s not up for grabs. People that steal from other people are pieces of garbage. Steal from corporations.
Do you really think breaking and entering deserves a death sentence? I’m not condoning it by any means, but equally death seems like a disproportionate response, not to mention the long term effects this is bound to have on the child.
On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.
Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.
Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.
I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.
You appear to have completely missed the point of my post and focussed on a side point. There’s a world of difference in defending yourself and thinking someone deserves death for entertaining a house.
To your other points, first off I haven’t said anything about the rights or wrongs of the child defending themselves, I’m not sure why you’re making the argument about that. I do however disagree there’s a basic assumption that anyone entering a house uninvited has no regard for the health and wellbeing of inhabitants. The rest of the post just looks like leap after leap from that point forward.
It only looks like leap after leap to you because it doesn’t agree with your basic premise.
Well, no, you’ve gone from “threat” to “threat to life” that’s a leap. I’m not sure where it disagrees with my original premise, I’m not sure it has anything to do with my original premise.
I don’t have the facts of the case, but it’s not like the defenders have the luxury of knowing the intruders intentions and how they will behave, but considering they are already doing something severely illegal, it’s not much of a stretch to think the intruder would be willing to put their life at risk, and in that context, it is absolutely justifiable to kill in defense.
Nobody breaking into inhabited houses is going to show up holding a feather duster.
If an intruder knows he is intruding and he doesn’t leg it as soon as he realizes someone is in the house, it is a very reasonable assumption to make that he has also got some kind of weapon.
The kid does claim the suspect threatened to harm or kill him.
The state shouldn’t be executing people for it but a regular person defending themselves is a different scenario. Police (allegedly) are trained in safely restraining criminals and taking them into custody. A regular citizen defending themselves is not. The safest thing for them is whatever takes their attacker down the quickest. Unfortunately that is generally going to be lethal force.
There’s a world of difference between defending yourself and feeling someone who breaks into a house deserves death.
I didn’t say they deserved death. I said you shouldn’t be worrying about the outcome (which is a decent probability of their death) while defending yourself. No one should be expected to hold back when their own safety is on the line. They didn’t put themselves in that situation. It’s entirely on the offender. If you manage to restrain/run them off without killing them, great but don’t risk your own life to do so.
I’m not really sure if you read my original post or not, it doesn’t have anything at all to do with what someone should or shouldn’t do when someone invades their home. It’s entirely to do with the “he had it coming”/“he deserved it” attitude a lot of responses seem to have.
deleted by creator
Yes
That sounds utterly unhinged if I’m honest.
Indeed, putting yourself and other at risk is unhinged , why would you violate the sanctuary of others like so otherwise?
Do you lack reading comprehension skills?
Agreed, you break the law you forfeit your life.
So you are down with someone breaking into your home and taking whatever they want including sexual liberties?
You are a better Christian than me.
Yeah that’s exactly what I said. Well done.
Also: Don’t be poor
Lots of poor people don’t break into other people’s houses.
and they remain poor
What exactly are you implying? That poor people must break into other people’s houses to escape poverty? Or that being poor just naturally gives one a predilection to break into the houses of others? Because the former is shitty, irresponsible advice that will get people maimed and/or killed, and the latter is insulting to the dignity of the less fortunate.
no I just meant that it’s only natural that poverty leads to crime
Get rich or die trying I suppose
fucking dies or goes to prison for life because even the kids be packing in America
being poor has nothing to do with breaking into another persons house.
just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
IMO stealing is an acceptable method of survival but stealing from an individual is wrong, while stealing from corporations is fine because they steal from individuals on an hourly basis.
From 2016 … lets talk about the child that just killed their family/sibling/neighbor/school with daddy’s gun, too.
Which one from the last month, you ask ? Doesn’t matter … pick one.
Yes, but that’s not Le Epic Chad Uber Cool. You don’t get to experience glee at the thought of being this person.
Why would I want to read something that makes me feel bad? Good Feels Only.
Most of this thread falls into two categories of people -
Shooting someone, under any condition, and not pouring you heart out for the person = psychopath
People who do illegal things are not actually people, please more authoritarianism
It is pretty obvious that almost no one, commenting here, has been in a situation where your life is truly being threatened, after your safety has been violated, and people who do not understand the how, and why, of criminal behavior. Yet they are all making very self-assured, absolutely black and white logic, statements as if they are the herald of truth.
To add to this comment…
People turn into animals under pressure and they cope with stress in unusual or seemingly unreasonable ways.
Taunting someone that you view as a threat to your safety may be a coping mechanism that serves to calm your own nerves, by making light of the situation and maintaining a sense of dominance over the aggressor.
It seems cold but in a life threatening situation there isn’t much room for thoughtful compassion, you have to do what you have to do to survive and there is no way to know what’s coming next. Even if things seem to have deescalated, it doesn’t end for a very very long time, thats what PTSD is all about.
Now, people who are engaging in illegal activity are people. I’ve been held at gun point, I’ve been shot at, and robbed. As much as I think these people deserve to go to jail I also hope that they eventually learn that what they did was wrong and want forgiveness. I would forgive them. All people are victims whether they know it or not, in various capacities.
The people that shot at me, probably had a harder life growing up and this is them fighting for a better life, as fucked up as it is, and as wrong as I think they are… Now, even with all of that said if I had a gun when this happened and I could get some good shots in, I might be talking some shit and I dont see that those two things conflict. I can be understanding of their situation, feel for them and feel bad for having to shoot them but also be taunting them at the same time. When I was robbed I jokingly told them to calm down as I was popping the register, they were pointing the pistol point blank at my face as I was being slightly dismissive of them, partially because thats who I am and also, Im sure, as a way to release tension.
There’s also the fact that the intruder was shot in the leg and didn’t die.
Yeah, and the kid is 11, instead of thinking “man, a full grown man broke into an 11 year old’s house, then threatened his life, and he shot the guy while running away, and then said mean things to him, he must have been in the middle of a big mind fuck, one that adults have issues dealing with, at 11, and isn’t acting normally, and this will have effects down the line we can’t foresee” many are like “I know exactly how people should behave to this specific childhood trauma, and this child is definitely a psychopath”.
OK bud, why don’t you tell me if the kid’s story makes sense, ok?
Kid was home alone petting the dogs, when he heard a noise upstairs. He was scared and grabbed a knife.
A man then appeared in the stairwell, saw the kid, and ran back upstairs. The man then reappeared moments later, and was now holding a gun. Making sense so far?
Now the man is coming down the stairs and this is when the kid claims the man is now telling him “he is going to kill me, [expletive] you, and all that”. Instead of running, the kid said he “upgraded his weaponry, picking up a 9mm handgun that was in the home”
So now the kid says he threatened to kill the man and ordered him to get out of the house, “I guess when I pulled the gun put on him he didn’t think it was a real gun cause he didn’t worry about it, he just kept walking”
Are you with me so far? The man supposedly has a gun and threatened to kill the kid, but doesn’t shoot. The kid suddenly has a gun and threatens to kill the man and orders him out of the house. The kid described the man as LEAVING the house.
Once the man is outside, the kid “fires a warning shot”. The man, carrying a stolen laundry hamper, starts running. That’s when the kid empties the magazine by firing 12 shots at the intruder.
“I shot through the hamper he was carrying. It was a full metal jacket bullet. It went straight through the back of his leg. He started crying like a little baby.”
That is the kid’s story of what happened, and it sounds like the kid invented a gun and a threat to his life in order to justify shooting someone who was running away. Also, how do you think that guy held a gun on the kid while holding onto a laundry hamper full of what I assume was stolen items?
Your story doesn’t make a lot of sense, but there are a bunch of extra details that don’t appear in either of the articles I’ve seen:
https://www.wptv.com/news/national/chris-gaither-11-year-old-boy-shoots-intruder-who-cried-like-a-baby
https://globalnews.ca/news/2675426/he-started-crying-like-a-little-baby-11-year-old-shoots-suspected-home-invader/So if you want to discuss the story’s details, maybe we should agree on those details, and you can give us something more than “trust me bro”.
Also, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and traumatic events make it even less reliable, and when you’re talking about a kid it’s even harder to get straight. I ask my kid what they said 10 seconds ago and they can’t give me a straight answer. Maybe just fucking lay off the child. Jesus christ.
“Confidently incorrect”
I understand that it’s self defense, but does it feel weird to anyone else how comfortable a kid is with killing another person?? He doesn’t seem to have much remorse.
I got no proof other than my personal experiences growing up and observing kids while teaching them in groups at a school.
Children by in large seem to have little empathy for others. Children have little to no problem with bullying others without any emotional issues. Even to the point of pushing other kids to suicide. They have little regard for others and even less control over maturity.
I think empathy is something that you develop as you grow older. It’s more a mark of adulthood than childhood.
Sadly, this is very similar of my wife’s understanding of teaching kids from 11-18. Emotional intelligence is very different from standard intelligence, and it develops at different times for different people.
Sometimes it’s a pure lack of empathy, and other times it’s simply not being able to understand that people have their own shit they’re dealing with. It can be simple stuff like bullying someone going through a rough time at home/school, or showing zero remorse when a kid they’ve assaulted goes blind due to brain damage because “the kid was a fucking dweeb”. Some of the stories I’ve heard second-hand are absolutely fucking tragic, even in good schools.
I don’t know about that. I think a lot of kids feel empathy from a young age, and bullying behaviors are rather caused by a harsh environment and how they are treated by other people, especially parents.
I’m not so sure. Children have a lot of desire and drive to monopolize an adult’s attention and resources. This I think gives any one child a leg up on getting the best resources to survive better. And you can see it when you work with a group of children. They will group around you jostling for the best position to be first and get the best from you. They do of course, get better with age and as they learn patience, but there is still a lack of empathy to be found in their base behavior.
After all, if you grew up with siblings, I’m quite sure your parents at some point in your early childhood told you “Be nice to your siblings! You love them!” more than once. Or some variation on that theme. And if you are a parent yourself, you have used that phrase at some point also. Because who has better reason to want to “kill” each other than brothers and sisters? They want to get as much of mommy and daddy as possible. Those resources are scarce and your natural drive is to fight to get them.
And hopefully, as children age they learn to get and show empathy to those around them. Most do, but some never quite manage it.
He didn’t kill the intruder.
The guy was shot in the leg. It doesn’t say in any of the news coverage that he died.
Is it not possible that this photo was taken prior to the incident, and that the kid was bothered by the whole situation? I have a hard time taking the “little baby” comment too seriously. People act in very unusual ways when overdosing on adrenaline.
There is a news logo on the bottom. This is likely a still from an interview about the incident
Fair point. I can see myself using some comment like that to cope if I were in that situation.
Murca
A world where a kid can remorselessly shoot someone. Isn’t that great. DGAF if the guy “deserved” it or not for breaking in.
These kids are our future.
not if they stay in school long enough !
either thanks to education, or murica freedom bullets…
The only thing that can stop a bad kid with a gun is a good kid with a gun.
username checks out
Ok…. Can this trend on news site die crying like a baby too?!??
What trend is the image showcasing? Repetition?
Yeah! You just want to read an article and it turns out it’s just the headline repeating over and over
SEO baby!
I thought you were just upset that it was demeaning to babies. Sort of like “throw like a girl”.
As someone who used to be a baby, I feel offended by this article. I didn’t cry like a home intruder.
Doesn’t look like a dancer.
I don’t know if teabagging counts as dancing anyway
I mean good but is no one worried about the kid not having any issues with taking someone’s life? Maybe I’m missing out on some extra pieces of info, but it is a bit concerning even if it is an intruder.
He’ll probably turn out “normal,” which is to say an asshole with several mental disorders.
So Lemmy. Nice
He didn’t actually kill the intruder so that’s something he can probably look forward to either after joining the military or law enforcement.
But joking aside, children by in large, don’t seem to have much empathy about such things. You can see this in the bullying they do in schools and on the playgrounds. And it doesn’t seem to bother them much.
He didn’t kill the suspect just injured and the suspect had threatened to kill him.
Isn’t this basically the plot of “Home Alone” and it’s very popular sequels playing out with a firearm? With FPS games as the cultural backdrop, why is anyone shocked at this? Or is this just hand-wringing?
The bandits in Home Alone had many chances to turn back and abandon the job.
You shoot someone, they stay shot.
Many of the cutesy cartoony traps in Home Alone would have absolutely killed the bandits in real life.
That’s the beauty of it
Unless you are a criminal. Those fuckers can handle a LOT of bullets inside their bodies. Not to count stabs. SO MANY stabs
If you break into a home you get what you deserve and that includes insults and\or deletion.
apparently lemmitors hate themselves so much that self defense is incomprehensible to them
Hilarity ensues when Lemmy subscribers start buying guns en masse to ridicule and own republicans after losing the elections, becoming the very thing they swore to destroy
In this case, a bullet to the leg which he survived.
I used to be a burglar like him, until I took a bullet to the knee
Imagine living in a society so deeply fucked up that some people feel the need to become burglars and others feel the need that attacking them with deadly weapons is the only option.
And then imagine that this is celebrated.
Oh well…
Na, fuck that, This guy might be a saint with the most tragic relatable backstory imaginable but the last thing this kid should do is hesitate long enough to hear that story or believe it, also a kid just can’t fight back even if he could he shouldn’t take the chances, as far as him saying he cried like a baby, 🤷 you broke into my house dude you aren’t gonna be praised. This kid has every right to be proud, in this situation we are nothing but animals and he did exactly the right thing.
you broke into my house dude you aren’t gonna be praised
Of course not.
This kid has every right to be proud, in this situation we are nothing but animals and he did exactly the right thing.
So is it right to put deadly weapons into the hands of children?
What if he had killed the burglar? Good thing to have on the conscience of a child, right?Don’t get me wrong. I totally understand that in extreme situations people should defend themselves. But was this an extreme situation which justifies these actions?
What the child said is already deeply disturbing:
“I told him I was going to kill him if he didn’t get out of my house,” said Chris.
And why the fuck do children have access to weapons?
he grabbed a 9mm handgun
Then there is this:
The intruder made it out the front door, but that’s when Chris started firing off bullets. As the intruder was about to jump a fence, Chris’s 12th and final shot hit the bad guy in the leg.
( Citations from: https://www.wptv.com/news/national/chris-gaither-11-year-old-boy-shoots-intruder-who-cried-like-a-baby )
Intruder was outside, going away, and the kid started shooting.
The kid could’ve just ran away. Instead of trying to kill someone or getting themselves killed by such a behaviour.No. The kid shouldn’t be proud. Neither should anyone. That’s just fucked up. And raising kids to become possibly killers is not making it better overall.
He can be lucky not to have killed that man and that he (the kid) didn’t get seriously injured.People can and should be better than this.
Anytime someone forces their way into your home it’s an extreme situation. The kid shouldn’t have followed him past the threshold but beyond that whatever means necessary to protect himself is justified. No one should be worrying about the safety of their attacker when they are defending themselves. The invader could have ensured his own safety by simply not doing that.
but beyond that whatever means necessary to protect himself is justified. No one should be worrying about the safety of their attacker when they are defending themselves
Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?
I don’t share your view. You don’t need to kill someone in order to stop some form of crime. Especially not if there is no or a low risk of bodily harm.
Self defence only goes so far as to inrerrupt and disable an attack. The mildest means possible are the preferrable ones. For example, if some wants to beat you up, you don’t go on and kill them after you’ve defeated them and they’re unconscious on the ground.
In this case, the best the kid could’ve done is to just run away and call for help. It would’ve been safer for himself and prevented that he possibly might have become a murderer.Self defence has limits. And for good reason. You can’t just do anything you want, just because someone attacks you. You do what is necessary and possible for you. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise you yourself become a culprit.
Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?
Sometimes they are. Sometimes they’re rapists. There are some sick motherfuckers in this world. When I was a kid a woman just down the street was raped in front of her kids by three home invaders. You can’t know the intention of the person breaking into your home. The safest bet for yourself is to assume the worst. There’s no way to know their intentions until they act and by then it may be too late. Especially if you’re not trained in “the mildest means possible” or are smaller and weaker than the intruder. You don’t owe these people anything. They put you in this situation. If they invent a gun with a stun setting like in Star Wars by all means use that. Until then lethal force is the most expedient way to disable an attacker. You don’t execute them if it renders them no longer a threat but if they die that outcome is acceptable.
I don’t understand how this comment has been upvoted, especially as a response to another comment that boils down to “it sucks that people are driven to burglary and it sucks that people have to defend themselves with deadly force from burglary”
Because when you’re a child alone in a house the motivation of an intruder just doesn’t matter and you shouldn’t make a kid feel bad for doing what was necessary in a life or death scenario.
No one in this thread is saying the kid should feel bad for defending himself, the original comment was pointing out how terrible it was for the kid to be in that position at all.
Because it’s an interesting point on its own. Upvotes aren’t necessarily agreement.
Saying “this kid has every right to be proud” about resorting to lethal violence is an “interesting point”?
Yes
No, you’d have to say a bunch of other stuff around that quote too.
The “bunch of other stuff around that quote” is them saying “fuck you” and then a bunch of chest thumping
Sounds pretty legit to me. It’s fucked people need to rob but you come to take someone’s things and you’re naive if you don’t think violence is a potential outcome.
It’s not the taking the things that’s the issue, it’s that the method of taking the things inherently comes with the either implicit or explicit threat of bodily harm or violence in order for the criminal to get what he wants. Nobody’s going to break into your house for your stuff, or leap out of a dark alley and demand your wallet, and when you tell them “no” just shrug and walk away. They’re going to shove a gun in your face or try to beat you up.
If you show up with the intent of employing force, you absolutely should not be surprised if people employ force against you in turn.
That, and if you want to stick it to The Man there are much more suitable targets than victimizing individual people who just as likely have it as tough as you do. Go knock over a Walmart or something. For fuck’s sake.
and you’re naive if you don’t think violence is a potential outcome
Currently, of course. Point is, people can be better. On both sides. And instead of nurturing our compassion and collective support, we praise violence and let continue the wheel to roll which has already destroyed countless of lives.
It’s just text on a screen. No idea of the details or even if it’s fabricated from whole cloth.
The only thing that’s important is the image of blood and terror and pain being worshipped by people who secretly yearn for the chance to inflict it on others.
