Careful where you walk........ - Page 6

Kerbouchard · June 4th, 2008, 03:49 PM

kazza, everybody in Texas knew about the drunk driver incident. I don't believe you would have been able to seat a GJ that had not heard of it.

I am sure that the DA pressed the GJ into indicting because somebody had died. The anti's screamed to the DA about how somebody had to pay. I still don't think he'll get a conviction.

homepcmd · June 4th, 2008, 03:56 PM

So...

Defend self with "BAD" gun is bad.

But drive drunk and kill somebody seems OK.

Why would the first get so much play and the latter none?

Based on the community where this home is in... I am surprised nobody "asked" how far his fence is from the window where one of these "innocent kids" got shot... to calculate some reasonable excuse for them to be three feet from said window.

How does that support their "reason" to be there?

If I "cross" private property to go next door... why would it involve me getting so close to the window of the property I am passing - I would NOT be interested in that... my focus is on the other property...

And with all of that "loud" noise from the party next door... how did the old man "hear" and then see two UNKNOWN individuals skulking three feet from his window... what is he... bionic?

I would bet there was NO noise and that's how he knew to call 911. No one also asked if there were lights on the outside to see much of anything - or was it only silhouette that the old man saw? (what would YOU do with only silhouette just outside your window at night?)

And nobody is talking about if these "kids" have a history of "going on private property..." or other things. I would bet if they were CLEAN... that would have been clearly reported.

Think about it.

Lots of questions and the answers (even from people commenting here) is no where close enough to justify this indictment.

Since it seems the "powers-at-be" do not want to crucify the DWI driver (probably illegal so it's a PC decision)... they needed to find a scapegoat and they have it with somebody using an EVIL gun.

I would not have believed that TX would have fallen for this. It's also a shame that so many here condemned this old guy with nothing but the article placed here.

If you did... look into your heart.

Would the article have "read better" if it was a story of two punks beating up and stealing from some old guy's house?

In a split second... those are YOUR alternatives.

Choose wisely.

echobaby · June 4th, 2008, 04:02 PM

In my day we were taught to keep off other peoples property unless we had permission. Not any more it seems. Times have changed. Alot of parents need some lessons on how to raise children properly.

tns0038 · June 4th, 2008, 04:16 PM

I’m not going to commit regarding legality, my only thought are it’s a shame, that we live in a day and time, when we are in fear for our lives and take such a drastic step without even knowing who was on the other side of that window.

You know that elderly guy knew them boys and would have never shot them if he would have known, it was them.

It’s also a shame, the dominos falling where in play and there poor mom died because of it.

Paladin132 · June 4th, 2008, 06:14 PM

It is a shame about the boy's mom. Drunk drivers should get to go to the special hell. At any rate, from what Kerbouchard posted it really is understandable that they got shot at. BTW, I don't think I would say that he made a poor shot, through glass in limited visibility, in all honesty one for one anywhere on the target is not a bad shot. In retrospect he shouldn't have fired, no doubt, but with what he knew at the time, well, I hope my grandmother would have done the same living in a rual place where 911 is a operator and not help for what may be an hour or more, I'd want her alive.

Bonesnofoa · June 5th, 2008, 07:29 AM

The man who shot the boys is 74 years old cannot possibly fight anything toe to toe. He may have also heard the music and feared someone drunk wanted to break into his house to harm him and his wife. The boys shouldn't have entered his property so late at night. It is dark, and he see's two figures in the yard just outside his window.

Any reasonable person would conclude they are not there for legitimate reasons.

The only one who should be charged in this case is the drunk driver.

bandit383 · June 5th, 2008, 08:35 AM

Sorry...can't defend the shooter...he shot blindly through a window at "what he thought" was a threat. No warnings...nothing. Would it make a difference if it was a 10 year old, a person trying to apprehend their run away dog or a LEO running through a yard attempting to apprehend a BG.

When I was younger...we would go through yards all the time. I suspect even now, kids take short cuts. I would of indicted as well.

Rick

Kerbouchard · June 5th, 2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandit383

Would it make a difference if it was a 10 year old, a person trying to apprehend their run away dog or a LEO running through a yard attempting to apprehend a BG.

To me? No, it would not make any difference whatsoever. I probably wouldn't have fired, but I'm also not 74. The kids had no business being there, and whether they are neighbors or not, I still don't buy the 'sneaking out to go to a party' excuse either.

Tye_Defender · June 5th, 2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandit383

When I was younger...we would go through yards all the time. I suspect even now, kids take short cuts. I would of indicted as well.

Me too. During the day. I can't imagine going up on someone's porch at 10:30 at night on my way to some other yard.

I do remember going through a farmer's watermelon patch "on my way to somewhere else" and was shot at with rock salt. Unbelievable huh? Good thing I was "on my way" there on all fours or I probably would have gotten hit! Oh, and never mind that one of his watermelons was no longer attached to the vine, that shouldn't enter into the discussion. I certainly didn't mention it to my Dad when I told him the story.

Of course, my Dad knew what I was up to as soon as I started the story. He's the one that told me it was rock salt that was shot our way. Apparently, rock salt is a common watermelon thief deterrent in Arkansas!

My point is, yes we used to walk across people's property when I was a kid, but you never did it at night, you put the gate back the way it was when you got there and were careful for their livestock, etc. The only reason to approach someone's house was if that was where you were going. This story sounds fishy to me, so I'm inclined to believe the home owner.

I'm sorry the kid got a graze wound. I'm sorry the mom was killed by a drunk driver. I'm really sorry the drunk driver isn't in prison for murder (I have very little sympathy for a drunk driver that kills someone, I seriously doubt this was his first time driving drunk!). But I don't understand a prison sentence for an old guy that shoots at a trespasser 3 feet from his house. It doesn't matter what I would have done, it only matters what he thought and did and was it reasonable to think what he did.

Kerbouchard · July 1st, 2008, 08:40 PM

Kaufman County man indicted in shooting of teen who crossed yard | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Latest News

Quote:

By RICHARD ABSHIRE / The Dallas Morning News
rabshire@dallasnews.com

A Kaufman County man faces possible prison time for shooting one of two teens cutting across his yard in March, an act that triggered a chain of events that ended with a traffic accident that killed the other boy's mother.

W.C. Frosch, 74, was inside his home March 1 when he shot 15-year-old Brandon Robinson through a window. Mr. Frosch has said he thought the boys were about to break into his home.

Kaufman County authorities initially cited the state's new "castle law" in declining to file charges. Under the law, a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car.

Prosecutors said they treated this case like any other.

"Self-defense claims are weighed on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts," Kaufman County District Attorney Rick Harrison said Monday. "We decided to take it to the grand jury, and they indicted him."

Mr. Frosch was indicted last week on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

He was not available for comment Monday, but he has said that he believes the shooting was justified.

"I don't think I had really much choice," Mr. Frosch said after the incident. "I think I was justified in what I done."

On the night of the shooting, Mr. Frosch told officers he thought the teens were prowlers, so he armed himself with a handgun and told his wife to call 911.

He shot through a window, striking Brandon under his left arm. His injuries were not life-threatening.

"Mr. Frosch shot me," Brandon said he told his friend Devin Nalls that night. "Your neighbor shot me!"

Brandon was spending the night with Devin, 16, whose family lives on one side of Mr. Frosch's property. The teens told officers they were crossing his yard to check out a loud party that was under way at a home on the other side of the Frosches'.

After the shooting, the teenagers ran back to Devin's home and his mother, June Nalls, 41, loaded the boys into her truck to take them to a local hospital.

On their way, a 1996 Ford driven by Agustin Renteria, 27, of Kaufman, crossed the center stripe and struck Ms. Nalls' pickup head-on, police said.

She was killed. Her son and Brandon survived.

Police later arrested Mr. Renteria on a charge of failure to stop and render aid, and more serious charges were pending blood alcohol test results.

There was no answer Monday at the Nalls home.

No trial date has been set for Mr. Frosch, who will be tried in the 86th District Court.

Initially, there was some question about whether Mr. Frosch's actions were legal under the "castle doctrine," which the state Legislature passed in its last session.

The law authorizes residents to use deadly force to protect their property in some situations without requiring them to retreat first.

But a sponsor of the law, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said the law was not meant to cover a case like this.

"It was our thinking that you have to be under attack," Mr. Wentworth said after the shooting.

This is an unfortunate update. I'm sure he will be cleared, but he should never have to go through this in the first place.

June 4th, 2008, 03:49 PM	#51
Kerbouchard VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,531	kazza, everybody in Texas knew about the drunk driver incident. I don't believe you would have been able to seat a GJ that had not heard of it. I am sure that the DA pressed the GJ into indicting because somebody had died. The anti's screamed to the DA about how somebody had to pay. I still don't think he'll get a conviction. __________________ Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever. http://miscmusings.townhall.com/ Who is John Galt?

June 4th, 2008, 03:56 PM	#52
homepcmd Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 58	So... Defend self with "BAD" gun is bad. But drive drunk and kill somebody seems OK. Why would the first get so much play and the latter none? Based on the community where this home is in... I am surprised nobody "asked" how far his fence is from the window where one of these "innocent kids" got shot... to calculate some reasonable excuse for them to be three feet from said window. How does that support their "reason" to be there? If I "cross" private property to go next door... why would it involve me getting so close to the window of the property I am passing - I would NOT be interested in that... my focus is on the other property... And with all of that "loud" noise from the party next door... how did the old man "hear" and then see two UNKNOWN individuals skulking three feet from his window... what is he... bionic? I would bet there was NO noise and that's how he knew to call 911. No one also asked if there were lights on the outside to see much of anything - or was it only silhouette that the old man saw? (what would YOU do with only silhouette just outside your window at night?) And nobody is talking about if these "kids" have a history of "going on private property..." or other things. I would bet if they were CLEAN... that would have been clearly reported. Think about it. Lots of questions and the answers (even from people commenting here) is no where close enough to justify this indictment. Since it seems the "powers-at-be" do not want to crucify the DWI driver (probably illegal so it's a PC decision)... they needed to find a scapegoat and they have it with somebody using an EVIL gun. I would not have believed that TX would have fallen for this. It's also a shame that so many here condemned this old guy with nothing but the article placed here. If you did... look into your heart. Would the article have "read better" if it was a story of two punks beating up and stealing from some old guy's house? In a split second... those are YOUR alternatives. Choose wisely. __________________ “We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm” - George Orwell

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 4th, 2008, 04:02 PM	#53
echobaby Ex Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Southeast Posts: 261	In my day we were taught to keep off other peoples property unless we had permission. Not any more it seems. Times have changed. Alot of parents need some lessons on how to raise children properly.

June 4th, 2008, 04:16 PM	#54
tns0038 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,175	I’m not going to commit regarding legality, my only thought are it’s a shame, that we live in a day and time, when we are in fear for our lives and take such a drastic step without even knowing who was on the other side of that window. You know that elderly guy knew them boys and would have never shot them if he would have known, it was them. It’s also a shame, the dominos falling where in play and there poor mom died because of it.

June 4th, 2008, 06:14 PM	#55
Paladin132 Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 342	It is a shame about the boy's mom. Drunk drivers should get to go to the special hell. At any rate, from what Kerbouchard posted it really is understandable that they got shot at. BTW, I don't think I would say that he made a poor shot, through glass in limited visibility, in all honesty one for one anywhere on the target is not a bad shot. In retrospect he shouldn't have fired, no doubt, but with what he knew at the time, well, I hope my grandmother would have done the same living in a rual place where 911 is a operator and not help for what may be an hour or more, I'd want her alive.

June 5th, 2008, 07:29 AM	#56
Bonesnofoa Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington Posts: 202	The man who shot the boys is 74 years old cannot possibly fight anything toe to toe. He may have also heard the music and feared someone drunk wanted to break into his house to harm him and his wife. The boys shouldn't have entered his property so late at night. It is dark, and he see's two figures in the yard just outside his window. Any reasonable person would conclude they are not there for legitimate reasons. The only one who should be charged in this case is the drunk driver.

June 5th, 2008, 08:35 AM	#57
bandit383 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,077	Sorry...can't defend the shooter...he shot blindly through a window at "what he thought" was a threat. No warnings...nothing. Would it make a difference if it was a 10 year old, a person trying to apprehend their run away dog or a LEO running through a yard attempting to apprehend a BG. When I was younger...we would go through yards all the time. I suspect even now, kids take short cuts. I would of indicted as well. Rick