Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/us/arkansas-prank-death/index.html?hpt=us_c1

A 15-year-old girl in Little Rock, Arkansas, is dead, police say, because of a prank that went horribly and tragically wrong.

She was with a group of teenagers who had gone to a house to do a "retaliation" prank on another teen who'd done a prank on them on Halloween, according to the Little Rock Police Department
Police have identified the shooting suspect as 48-year-old Willie Noble. He was charged with one count of first-degree murder, one count of a terroristic act and five counts of aggravated assault.
Noble appeared Saturday morning in Little Rock Criminal Court, where bond was set at $1 million.
I think the Teenager was in Violation of A.C.A. § 5-38-204 Criminal mischief in the second degree!

I believe the home owner will acted under A.C.A. § 5-2-607 Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

Am I reading the law Right? I'm no lawyer by any means and no I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last nite!! LOL

Semperfi,
Marine6212

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
More to the Story!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kids-covering-car-leaves-eggs-mayonnaise.html

just before 1am on Saturday morning.

It was the second prank Broadway and her friends had played on Noble that evening -
In addition to Broadway and the 18-year-old driver, one 17-year-old, four 15 year-old's, and on 14-year-old were in the car at the time of the shooting.
According to witnesses, Noble came outside and fired on the car full of teens as they drove away.


Semperfi,
Marine6212
 

·
Cross-drawer
Joined
·
7,322 Posts
Sounds like a bad shoot but I have no sympathy for the kid. Story probably will not be big news long though as the kid was committing a crime an everyone is the same race...
Oh, I bet it will, especially if the shooter is white because the girl is Black.
Hostin added: "That's why this kind of thing just infuriates me ... It's about, sort of, not only stand your ground, but guns, and the protection of those to just use them stupidly."
I bet it's already on the Moms Demand Action FB page.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
We don't have his side of the story. All we have is the pranksters' story of TPing, egging, and throwing mayo on his car.

Even if he did truly believe that his life was threatened, why go outside to confront multiple potential assailants? I agree with RebelCowboy. He shouldn't have gone out there and opened fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
Hostin added: "That's why this kind of thing just infuriates me ... It's about, sort of, not only stand your ground, but guns, and the protection of those to just use them stupidly."
Well, seeing as Sunny Hostin is from New York, she must be talking about those two NYPD officers who injured 9 innocent bystanders while opening fire on a suspect with no regard for who else was in the vicinity of their aim. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
Not meaning this to sound cold...and I understand how it could certainly be taken as such...

First off, at least based on what we know...this appears to be something that should not have happened. This is simply a personal view but I often times find myself questioning the wisdom of anyone shooting someone when you had to leave your house to do so. But then since I am not there...finding fault per se is foolish.

Sure there could be circumstances where that might be justifiable i.e. you exited your dwelling to stop an action that was in progress where a human life was at stake. On the flip side of it...exiting your house and popping off a round at a vehicle driving off, irregardless of the damage, is not the actions of a rational human. The threat is over...and departing, therefore you are no longer within your right to employ deadly force. That is the way it works. Good Lord I was a cop 2 decades ago and while we were legally allowed to shoot fleeing felons, the department specifically forbid it...many departments do.

The cold part of this is the fact is that personal ownership of firearms has risen dramatically over the last 5 years. The one thing I will give Obama...he has been the best driving factor for the sales of firearms and ammunition since Samuel Colt. Given that widely known fact...we see it in virtually every news media there is, why on earth would people think about engaging in conduct where their actions would create the risk of incurring the victim to employ deadly force, irregardless of whether it was employed legally or not.

Don't get me wrong here...I am not defending anyone...IF this incident turns out to be a tragic result because bad judgment...then the shooter has got it coming to him for the choices he made. But just as true is that it WILL NOT bring back the dead.

But my cold delivery is this:

Since it is well known that so many who own weapons...DO NOT DO STUPID THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL. I would like to think that the vast majority of people who own firearms are not out to try and use them...but the fact is that they do have them. IF YOU WANT TO NOT HAVE THEM USED...THEN DO NOT DO STUPID ILLEGAL THINGS.

I know...it doesn't excuse what happened...and it never will...but given the knowledge...participating in something that is NOT LEGAL COULD RESULT IN A TRAGIC OUTCOME.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
...

Since it is well known that so many who own weapons...DO NOT DO STUPID THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL. I would like to think that the vast majority of people who own firearms are not out to try and use them...but the fact is that they do have them. IF YOU WANT TO NOT HAVE THEM USED...THEN DO NOT DO STUPID ILLEGAL THINGS.

I know...it doesn't excuse what happened...and it never will...but given the knowledge...participating in something that is NOT LEGAL COULD RESULT IN A TRAGIC OUTCOME.
I completely agree.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
Georgia Law

I have no interest in reading about Arkansas law right now, but I'll say this:

ONE: In Georgia, sometimes you can shoot to PREVENT or STOP an ongoing crime that is still in progress, but you can almost NEVER shoot to stop the offenders from successfully escaping the scene of the crime.

Here, it sounds like the guy in the house shot a group of fleeing vandals that may have committed felony-level vandalism to his car.

TWO: Even if the law of a certain state is worded in a way that it seems that you can shoot to kill somebody over a property-only crime where nobody's life or safety is in danger from that crime, it's VERY RISKY. You can expect to be arrested, held without bond or a huge bond (and you'll pay 12% of it as a fee to a bonding service. Fee. Not refundable.) You can expect to be prosecuted and to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees (hundreds of thousands if it goes to trial, or beyond that to appeal).

--------------------

One part of the Georgia code seems to allow for deadly force to prevent a property-only crime.

If the crime in question is somebody breaking into a parked car, intending to steal it or steal something from within it (both are felonies, regardless of dollar value), and in light of the fact that Georgia law declares that your car is also your "HABITATION" like your home is, see this law:


O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation


A person is justified in threatening or using force [ REGULAR FORCE ] against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation;

however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm [ DEADLY FORCE ] only if:

.... (3) The person using such force reasonably believes
that
--- the entry [into a parked automobile] is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein
and
--- that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

****************************

That, above, is one of the scenarios where if you want to exercise your statutory rights to the fullest under the letter of the law, you can expect to bring down a lot of trouble on your head, and you may end up protesting your innocence for the next 20 years from a concrete box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
He would have done better to shoot with a camera. Grab the plate number and maybe some pictures of the kids. As depicted, it was a bad shoot.
 

·
Opinion Taken Elsewhere.
Joined
·
5,198 Posts
2 questions...

Why would you have that many people with you just to egg a car?

How do we know they just egged a car an were shot driving away?

The egg on the car may be the only thing visible of their actions but they could have been screaming threats or worse.

They could have also ran cause they were being shot at first.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
Brett Tonkin

Back in the late 1990s, some teenagers decided to TP and egg some other teen's house in East Cobb, a very nice neighborhood.
The homeowner jumped in his vehicle and chased after the fleeing vandals. He said he wanted to get their license plate number and a description of these criminals.

But the teens knew they were being followed, and drove too fast, trying to get away. They crashed, and a couple of girls were killed.

The homeowner was tried and CONVICTED of something (murder? Manslaughter? I'm not sure) in their deaths.

I don't know what happened with regard to any appeal, or what his sentence was.

The homeowner's name was Brett Tonkin. I Googled his name but all I see are old news stories that were written before his trial was concluded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,909 Posts
Back in the late 1990s, some teenagers decided to TP and egg some other teen's house in East Cobb, a very nice neighborhood.
The homeowner jumped in his vehicle and chased after the fleeing vandals. He said he wanted to get their license plate number and a description of these criminals.

But the teens knew they were being followed, and drove too fast, trying to get away. They crashed, and a couple of girls were killed.

The homeowner was tried and CONVICTED of something (murder? Manslaughter? I'm not sure) in their deaths.

I don't know what happened with regard to any appeal, or what his sentence was.

The homeowner's name was Brett Tonkin. I Googled his name but all I see are old news stories that were written before his trial was concluded.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/You+cast+your+X;+Carnage+of+the+NAUGHTY+GIRLS.-a060756473

BRETT TONKIN was found not GUILTY of vehicular homicide, but guilty of driving too fast. He got a 12-month suspended sentence and a pounds 270 fine.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top