Methinks this guy may end up in hot grease

[Skippys]

(See story here.)

"...Jeff and Sherri Robinson...filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of their son Joseph, 17, against Carl Jerome Edmonds....

"Joseph was shot in the early morning hours of May 29. Joseph and at least one other boy were knocking on doors or ringing doorbells, then running away. Police said one homeowner, identified in the lawsuit as Edmonds, thought his home was being broken into and opened fire.

Joseph was shot, and the bullet remains embedded in his leg. The lawsuit says he will have permanent physical disability and incur future medical bills as a result. It asks for punitive damages and the cost of civil action, for a total of no less than $2.5 million.

Olson accuses Edmonds of acting in a reckless and grossly negligent manner. The complaint alleges Edmonds was not in danger, the children were playing a "childish prank" and were not armed, and Edmonds' property was not threatened. The Robinsons' claim also states the use of a gun was excessive and not a legal use of a weapon...."

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OldVet]

Same thing happened in FL a few years back. Homeowner was convicted of manslaughter, and rightfully so. Shot the kid in the back as he ran away.

[Supertac45]

Sounds like a really bad shot to me.

[Hiram25]

What's wrong with these people? Shoot a kid for ringing your doorbell! What would they do if they had a real issue?

[dukalmighty]

That is just stupid.

[obxned]

I'd like to see all the facts. 17-year-olds are not chidren, and this was not a 'childish prank'. Exactly where was the young man standing when he was shot? Which way did the bullet enter the leg? Were he and his associates merely ringing doorbells to annoy sleeping people, or were they a burglery crew seeing which homes were empty? Were they trying to get someone to open a door so they could rush and rob them? Were they also 'knocking' on this particular door, perhaps vigerously enough to make the home owner think they were trying to force entry? There is something fishy about this whole thing.

[zacii]

I dunno. On the surface, it looks like the guy got shot for trespassing. Not a deadly force issue.

That said, there may be other facts that we don't know, yet.

17yr olds can hardly be called children.

[Eagleks]

I'd like to see all the facts. 17-year-olds are not chidren, and this was not a 'childish prank'. Exactly where was the young man standing when he was shot? Which way did the bullet enter the leg? Were he and his associates merely ringing doorbells to annoy sleeping people, or were they a burglery crew seeing which homes were empty? Were they trying to get someone to open a door so they could rush and rob them? Were they also 'knocking' on this particular door, perhaps vigerously enough to make the home owner think they were trying to force entry? There is something fishy about this whole thing.

I'm with you on this one.... highly suspect

[dukalmighty]

I reread it and had a thought WTH are 17 year olds doing out in the wee hours of the morning,when I was that age if I wasn't working I had to be home by 10 on a school night and 12 on weekends

[Guardian]

They do leave out some information, did he open the door, was he sitting right by the door, what did he just grab a gun and start shooting from wherever he was sitting, was he in bed and took time to get up, early morning hours how early, from what I remember of ding dong ditch, you rang and ran and watched from a distance, you didn't stay close enough to get shot even if they had a gun. Something is not adding up here.

[bladenbullet]

it takes time to respond to a doorbell in the wee hours of the morning and its hard to believe the kids were just ringing and running and managed to get shot by a homeowner when he responded...i would be more inclined to believe they were hanging around after they rang and intimidating the homeowner or attempting to scare them...it would be interesting to know more...