photo: insidenova
A star basketball player goes out for a night of partying and ends up being shot to death by a neighbor.
The teen had become significantly inebriated, and entered the wrong house. The homeowner shot and killed him in the stairwell.
Police have not charged the homeowner, but some question whether charges should be brought, given the obvious and visible inebriation of the intruder.
Some are calling for prosecution, but there's a snag. Virginia passed what is known as the Castle Doctrine law, a law that permits an individual to shoot another person, even if the other person is unarmed, if the individual feels his life is in danger. Although the law was ultimately not ratified because it conflicted with common law, it is in fact as if it were law, because most Virginians are pro gun. For all intents and purposes, the gun owner defending his house will have many sympathizers on his side.
The law, which was pushed by the NRA, aimed to help those people who fire guns without taking the time to ascertain whether the person they shoot is armed or a real threat to them, is a favorite amongst NRA members and avid gun owners. In their opinion it removes the danger of being prosecuted for defending themselves.
But the law has ample room for abuse. Everyone remembers the Florida case, now in the courts where a teenager was shot in a gated neighborhood, essentially for being black.
This case is obviously different. Not too many people would take the time to ascertain if the intruder is well intentioned or not, or if the inebriated state is instead a drug induced state which could lead to violence.
And yet, there seems to be a disconnect today in America. And inability to resolve almost any problem or doubt without literally firing first.
The teenage basketball player, who was shot in Sterling, Virginia, was a much beloved teen who excelled in sports. Many are calling what happened to him an outrage. And some people are trying to do something about it.
The local Sheriff's office is in contact with the state's attorney's office to decide what to do, but almost all bets are that the homeowner will go free. The homeowners asserts that he exercised diligence by firing a warning shot and shouting to the boy to leave, which apparently he refused to do. At that point, the homeowner says he shot the boy again, killing him. With no witnesses to say otherwise, the homeowner who finds himself in this situation is at a net advantage.
In the meantime a memorial is planned for the teenager at his school.
Source: InsideNova 3.20.13/Wash Post 3.20.13
No comments:
Post a Comment