Child shot dead while trick-or-treating on Halloween

[jtbell]

This was the lead story on most of the TV stations in the area tonight:

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=67437&catid=2

For the non-Americans who are puzzled by the circumstances: on October 31, Halloween (All Hallows Eve), children dress up in costumes and go from door to door begging for (usually) candy with the expression "trick or treat". That is, "if you don't treat us (to candy), we'll trick you" (with some minor vandalism). I did it myself when I was a child many years ago. Back then, we did it in small groups on our own. Nowadays, parents usually accompany their children out of fear for their safety.

 

[alligatorman]

No words can describe how disgusting this is. I don't even know what else to say.

 

[rootX]

No words can describe how disgusting this is. I don't even know what else to say.

Same here.

Other ones that happened like last week:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=268076
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=267516

 

[cristo]

That is terrible, though not surprising anymore.

Other ones that happened like last week:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=268076
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=267516

A coincidence that we're hearing more about these sorts of things, given what's happening next week?

 

[misgfool]

Although this was a tragedy, how many cases like this are there in US per year? When civilians have access to fully automatic assault rifles like AK-47 combined with a large heterogenic population, isn't this almost probable to happen? Large news coverage of this kind of isolated incident serves no purpose, leads to irrational conclusions and possibly regulation based on flawed facts.

 

[Alfi]

A great sadness for all involved.

Tell me again and again until I believe.

Guns don't kill people.

 

[LowlyPion]

That is terrible, though not surprising anymore.

A coincidence that we're hearing more about these sorts of things, given what's happening next week?

I don't follow. What connection are you drawing between these random acts of violence?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't follow. What connection are you drawing between these random acts of violence?

I'm presuming "what's happening next week" is the election. I guess cristo is suggesting that the reporting of events is intended to influence voter choices. I don't think he was suggesting that the crimes were related to the election.

 

[Astronuc]

That is terrible, though not surprising anymore.

A coincidence that we're hearing more about these sorts of things, given what's happening next week?

This latest tragedy is unrelated to the political environment.

In the case in Sumter, SC, the perpetrator had an AK-47, which he claims he used to avoid being robbed or assaulted. This guys is nuts, and unfortunately, the father and his children just happened to pick a house in which a nutcase had an AK-47.

The prevalence of gun ownership does increase the risk that guns will be used out of anger or fear. Certainly, more Americans die and will die at the hands of other Americans than from terrorists. Statistically, Americans are much more dangerous to themselves.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm presuming "what's happening next week" is the election. I guess cristo is suggesting that the reporting of events is intended to influence voter choices. I don't think he was suggesting that the crimes were related to the election.

I don't see any correlation specifically with the election itself. These events are newsworthy in other cycles, irrespective of the idea that there is an election in a few days.

Random tragedies seem more the province of increasing chance as opposed to any ideology, and gun issues are not to my knowledge on the ballot to any great degree. (The more spins of the roulette wheel you see, the more you will see 00 come up.)

If there is any connection to be drawn then I'd say it is more statistical in nature based on ever increasing population, broader universal news coverage of local events, and perhaps fueled in small part by heightened tensions world wide, with shrinking economic activity placing stress on people's lives. But as to a child shooting himself at a gun show and a nutball firing an AK-47 through the door at trick or treaters and a South African going Charles Bronson, but missing - I don't see any real connection in the events or conspiracy afoot in the reporting.

I note that places like Physics Forum represent a magnified number of eyeballs drawing disparate news sources to the attention of the community here. As much as anything I think it's more a reflection of the nature of the interest in such topics here as opposed to any escalation in general reporting, that is not already driven by the rising number of such events in the world at large.

 

[edward]

From the link:

Investigators say Pee and Patrick took $7500 in bundled cash from the home.

That much cash usually means drugs were involved.

 

[Astronuc]

From the link:

That much cash usually means drugs were involved.

So Patrick probably thought that someone was going to knock him over for the $7500 cash, which is very likely related to drugs. I hope the cops do a drug test on Patrick, who is probably a bit paranoid from drug use or illegal activities.

 

[Evo]

You people have got to start reading the articles.

Patterson did say that Patrick "is known to law enforcment," and was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, making Patrick a convicted felon.

According to South Carolina law, convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing or owning any kind of firearm.

 

[chasely]

That's just deplorable.

Who keeps a loaded assault rifle pointed at a door, on Halloween night, convicted felon or not?

 

[Gokul43201]

If this were Texas, the killer would not have had to face trial for murder, would he? After all, the trick-or-treaters were trespassing on his property, so he would have been fully within his rights to shoot them down.

 

[mgb_phys]

If this were Texas, the killer would not have had to face trial for murder, ... After all, the trick-or-treaters were trespassing on his property, so he would have been fully within his rights to shoot them down.

If it were Texasa the front porch would have been rigged with claymore mines anyway.

 

[Astronuc]

That's just deplorable.

Who keeps a loaded assault rifle pointed at a door, on Halloween night, convicted felon or not?

A drug dealer with $7500 in cash - and perhaps he had a stash.

I doubt he was waiting with his AK-47 pointing at the door. More likely he heard noise, went and got his gun, and started short when masked people came to his door.

And as Evo pointed out from an article - Patrick is a convicted drug felon. Now he's toast.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If this were Texas, the killer would not have had to face trial for murder, would he? After all, the trick-or-treaters were trespassing on his property, so he would have been fully within his rights to shoot them down.

In the case that you linked, clear warning was given before any shots were fired. And a crime was in progress. In the case linked in the op, there was no warning, and the children obvoiusly were committing no crime. You are suggesting that it is trespassing to knock on someone's front door.

§ 30.05. Criminal Trespass, Texas Penal Code

(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

http://www.kennedyattorneys.com/criminaltrespass-TarrantCountyCriminalLawyers.html

 

[sirchasm]

Interesting dynamic, the ownership of weapons and "right to use deadly force", that Americans want to believe so wholeheartedly is a founding principle of some sort.

But they also seem to want to believe wholeheartedly in the American military's right to use force, to take weapons from citizens in other countries, thus denying "others" any right to bear arms for "self defense".

I think it's interesting, anyways. Considering how many weapons are sold around the world every day.

 

[LowlyPion]

... and the children obvoiusly were committing no crime.

Technically that's true. It is not criminalized.

But it is still an extortion racket.

 

[Cyrus]

Interesting dynamic, the ownership of weapons and "right to use deadly force", that Americans want to believe so wholeheartedly is a founding principle of some sort.

But they also seem to want to believe wholeheartedly in the American military's right to use force, to take weapons from citizens in other countries, thus denying "others" any right to bear arms for "self defense".

I think it's interesting, anyways. Considering how many weapons are sold around the world every day.

This is a simple view and makes no sense.

*Note- I really am tired of you anti-gun people having a weak argument. Wow, there were three stories about gun related incidents. Woop de do. That does not constitute an argument. Get real.

 

[rootX]

*Note- I really am tired of you anti-gun people having a weak argument. Wow, there were three stories about gun related incidents. Woop de do. That does not constitute an argument. Get real.

Yes, only three kids died... who cares - all strangers (and it's usual .. few kids die each year). We wouldn't think about age limits on children, more strict gun laws until we have good statistics

Pro-gun people said guns are for
1) protection
2) fun

Protection looks good when you live in a high crime rate area and you use gun for at least twice a year.

Do you have any other argument in gun's favor?

P.S. I am not that against guns but seriously, two other cases could be avoided if society wasn't that negligent.
In first case, kid shouldn't have been there in first place
In second, immature person shouldn't have owned guns.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, only three kids died... who cares - all strangers (and it's usual .. few kids die each year). We wouldn't think about age limits on children, more strict gun laws until we have good statistics

Pro-gun people said guns are for
1) protection
2) fun

Protection looks good when you live in a high crime rate area and you have use gun for at least twice a year.

Do you have any other argument in gun's favor?

Do you have a point, or are you simply stating opinion (for the record, I don't care about your opinion)?

Get back to me when you have a valid point. Go google the constitution and try reading it. You might find it enlighting, educational, and informative.

Here, I'll save you the trouble:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Then you can rethink why I have to explain anything in guns favor to you - Fundamentally, I dont.

 

[drankin]

Interesting dynamic, the ownership of weapons and "right to use deadly force", that Americans want to believe so wholeheartedly is a founding principle of some sort.

But they also seem to want to believe wholeheartedly in the American military's right to use force, to take weapons from citizens in other countries, thus denying "others" any right to bear arms for "self defense".

I think it's interesting, anyways. Considering how many weapons are sold around the world every day.

You are going to have to explain how you figure Americans believe all this nonsense "wholeheatedly". I'm American and I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm anti-gun in principle, but I have to say that this particular incident looks like it has nothing to do with gun control or 2nd amendment stuff. As Astronuc pointed out, it happened because the guy was engaged in illicit activities and was either crazy or in serious trouble with another criminal. Maybe he was even expecting a raid from someone.

Even in a country with a high level of gun control, the guy owned the gun illegally anyways and same thing probably would have happened, just with a pistol or shotgun or something. (Or, well, I don't know enough about guns; would the average pistol round still be lethal after going through a glass or wooden external door? I would think yes, at least with a glass door, and maybe not with a steel door, but perhaps someone else can enlighten me.)

⚛​

 

[sirchasm]

I'm American and I don't know what you are talking about.

I'll try and make it simple then.
Americans believe their Constitution affords Americans the right to own and use guns to defend themselves and their property, or is that an assumption I've made based on no really clear understanding of the gun culture and what sustains it in that country?

This is allied to a firm belief that anyone living in a country which is not America, where civilians have guns deserves to be invaded, so these guns can be safely removed from their possession, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, various African and South American countries, there are plenty of historical and present-day examples, of such "de-militarisation".

This is somewhat ironic, that American democracy demands the civilian possession of personal weapons for "self-defense", but ensures a country is "led' into democracy by confiscating personal weapons from civilians. This simply would not happen in America.

 

[Office_Shredder]

How the heck does that make sense when the rule of thumb in Iraq is every house is allowed to have an AK-47?

 

[drankin]

sirchasm, can you support your allegation that the US is disarming the Iraqi public? I believe Office Shredder is correct. US soldiers by default would not confiscate weapons of peaceful civilian locals. That would be considered stealing personal property. The only reason weapons would be confiscated is if it were determined that those particular weapons were intended to be used towards the US/Allies or other Iraqi citizens.

Basically, unless you can support your allegation, I think it's safe to say that you are completely wrong. The US is not exercising a policy to disarm everyone but it's own citizens.

 

[sirchasm]

How the heck does that make sense when the rule of thumb in Iraq is every house is allowed to have an AK-47?

That doesn't make sense.
Every house in Iraq is "allowed" to have an AK-4??
American soldiers are making sure Iraqis are all following the rule of thumb, with Russian weapons?

Would that be: "all Iraqis except the ones who want to shoot at American soldiers"?

 

[drankin]

That doesn't make sense.
Every house in Iraq is "allowed" to have an AK-4??
American soldiers are making sure Iraqis are all following the rule of thumb, with Russian weapons?

Would that be: "all Iraqis except the ones who want to shoot at American soldiers"?

The point is that US soldiers are not disarming the Iraqi public as you said they were. There is no double standard applying to gun ownership as you suggested. From what I've heard (I have a few relatives over there) the AK-47 is a predominent weapon in Iraq.