# Dallas Homeowner Shoots, Kills 14yo Intruder



## MJS (Apr 11, 2012)

Saw this on Bills FB today, and thought it was worthy of discussion. 
http://www.khou.com/home/Homeowner-shoots-kills-14-year-old-intruder-146827435.html




> DALLAS  Two teenagers are in custody and a third is dead after an attempted break-in in southeast Dallas on Monday morning.
> Police said the suspects were betting on entering an empty house  not facing an armed homeowner.
> Investigators said the three young people rang the front doorbell of Lee Cobler's home in the 7300 block of Vallejo Drive. When no one answered, they went around the back and started trying to kick the door in.
> But Cobler, 51, was at home with an adult son. The son was on the phone with 911 when police said Cobler opened fire on the intruders, killing 14-year-old Luis Avila, a student at Hood Middle School.
> ...


----------



## MJS (Apr 11, 2012)

Certainly a sad thing.  However, I can't blame the homeowner, and I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing the same thing.  In 2007, there was a tragic home invasion here in CT.  Husband badly beaten, although he managed to escape.  Sadly, his wife and 2 daughters, died, and the house was set on fire.  Fortunately the 2 dirtbags were caught and are now sitting on death row.  

But the point of this is, IMO anyways, is that in situations like this, you never know whats going to happen, and frankly, I don't think its wise to take any chances.  

And according to this, he was well within his rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 11, 2012)

MJS said:


> Certainly a sad thing.  However, I can't blame the homeowner, and I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing the same thing.  In 2007, there was a tragic home invasion here in CT.  Husband badly beaten, although he managed to escape.  Sadly, his wife and 2 daughters, died, and the house was set on fire.  Fortunately the 2 dirtbags were caught and are now sitting on death row.
> 
> But the point of this is, IMO anyways, is that in situations like this, you never know whats going to happen, and frankly, I don't think its wise to take any chances.
> 
> ...



I agree.  There are some who will say that it's a 'license to kill', but although the burglar killed was a child, the homeowner had no way of knowing that; and it could have been anyone, armed, drug-addled, etc (and often is).  One could argue that the homeowner should have waited before firing, but waiting is often fatal; it gives an armed intruder the chance to fire first.  I sadly conclude that I would have done the same thing the homeowner did.  Note that in the story, he's pretty destroyed about his own actions; there are no winners here.  His life will never be the same again, even if he is not charged with any crime.   Something to keep in mind when we talk about using a weapon in self-defense.  No one kills and then goes on as if nothing happened.  Everything changes, and generally not for the better, other than the person who defended themselves is still alive.


----------



## cdunn (Apr 11, 2012)

Shame the kid was so young, but aside from deploring the loss of life on general principle, I would have to say that this is what castle doctrine is for. 

Man, though, Bill's right, I'd hate to have to live with it.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 11, 2012)

While a grand jury is required to review the circumstances, no charges will be filed since the shooter waited until the intruder broke through the door. That being said, I agree it is a terrible thing to have to live with. Another sad thing, to my mind, is that the parents of these children, the ones that are supposed to be teaching and guiding them, will get nothing but sympathy for their child losing his life. All we can hope is that it serves as a wake up call to other kids.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 11, 2012)

it would have been MORE sad if the home owner had been killed by the scumbag

lets get some prospective here people. And give that guy a medal, one less scummer for the city to deal with.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 11, 2012)

MJS said:


> ...
> 
> Principal C.A. Williams sent out a letter to parents explaining that one of their students was killed in a burglary attempt. "Our thoughts and prayers are obviously with the family and close friends of the student who is no longer with us," she wrote.



I understand we are talking middle school kids here, and any time someone is killed it is unfortunate. I also don't know for sure what better the principle could have said.

But it seems to me we send a wrong message when we don't squarely put the blame where it belongs. Three kids tried to break into an occupied home. They thought it was empty. Never a good assumption. Their actions were illegal and wrong. The cause of the death of one is all of their faults. They, and specifically the dead kid is dead, because of illegal choices they made. They deserve no sympathy. Other kids will learn that it was just misfortunate and sad only. Not that it was illegal and potentially lethal to those living in the home, nor that actions have consequences.

The same still happens concerning the Virginia Tech shootings. I still hear how many died, one of which was the shooter. No, the shooter killed the other students without provocation or regard for them. Crazy or not, he did what he did and it was wrong. He should not be considered a victim of the shooting as well. He doesn't deserve that promotion from the ranks of bad guys breaking the law and killing innocent people.

Rant over, but I am curious what others think. Is there a better way to characterize people who do bad things?


----------



## seasoned (Apr 11, 2012)

They were all young, and stupid. 
I didn't see where it mentioned what time in the morning they rang the door bell. If it was 3:00 am, it would take me a while to wake up, wonder what the heck was going on, before I decided I wasn't going to open my door anyway. 3 intruders would make for a very dangerous situation, and that is what I would focus on..................


----------



## MJS (Apr 12, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I understand we are talking middle school kids here, and any time someone is killed it is unfortunate. I also don't know for sure what better the principle could have said.
> 
> But it seems to me we send a wrong message when we don't squarely put the blame where it belongs. Three kids tried to break into an occupied home. They thought it was empty. Never a good assumption. Their actions were illegal and wrong. The cause of the death of one is all of their faults. They, and specifically the dead kid is dead, because of illegal choices they made. They deserve no sympathy. Other kids will learn that it was just misfortunate and sad only. Not that it was illegal and potentially lethal to those living in the home, nor that actions have consequences.
> 
> ...



Thats the problem today...we tend to sugar coat things, which IMHO, is a bad thing.  Tell people the way it is.  Too many people are afraid to hurt feelings or get their feelings hurt, so we tend to make it sound different.  Screw that!  You reap what you sow, and you're certainly in control of your life.  They chose to break into a home, now 1 is dead, the others are in jail.  

Sad because it was a young kid or the fact that someone died in general...sure, I can agree with that to a point, however, whenever you decide to do something wrong, then you better be willing to take responsibility for your actions.  Break into a home and get shot/killed..good, you got what you deserve.  Mug someone and the victim turns the tables and beats the living **** out of you...good, you got what you deserve.  As I've said before, I really have little to no sympathy for the badguys.  

I have to wonder what kind of upbrining these kids came from.  After all, you learn what you live, so are the parents scumbags?  Don't know, but it makes you wonder.  Don't they teach them right from wrong?


----------



## cdunn (Apr 12, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I understand we are talking middle school kids here, and any time someone is killed it is unfortunate. I also don't know for sure what better the principle could have said.
> 
> But it seems to me we send a wrong message when we don't squarely put the blame where it belongs. Three kids tried to break into an occupied home. They thought it was empty. Never a good assumption. Their actions were illegal and wrong. The cause of the death of one is all of their faults. They, and specifically the dead kid is dead, because of illegal choices they made. They deserve no sympathy. Other kids will learn that it was just misfortunate and sad only. Not that it was illegal and potentially lethal to those living in the home, nor that actions have consequences.
> 
> ...



What these kids did was wrong, full stop. What the VT shooter did was wrong, full stop. However, those who loved and cared for the perpetrator still deserve some sympathy, for they are also (essentially) innocent victims of the perpetrator. And a parent that ****ed up badly enough that their kid got himself shot... it takes a pretty awful human being in the first place not to tear yourself up over that.


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 12, 2012)

While loss of life is always sad, particularly when a child is involved, the death lies squarly on the shoulders of those youths committing the crime.  In my opinion, those two that weren't shot should be charged with murder 2.

There really is no upside to this story.  Even though the man who shot the teen was in the right, no normal person is not effected by such a thing.  I'm sure the teen that was shot had family that loved him.  The two other teens are probably in a lot of hot water.  All because these teens thought that they could go where they wanted to go and take what they wanted to take, consequences be damned.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 12, 2012)

cdunn said:


> What these kids did was wrong, full stop. What the VT shooter did was wrong, full stop. However, those who loved and cared for the perpetrator still deserve some sympathy, for they are also (essentially) innocent victims of the perpetrator. And a parent that ****ed up badly enough that their kid got himself shot... it takes a pretty awful human being in the first place not to tear yourself up over that.



Basically, I can't argue with anything you say.  But my complaint is with the people who try to minimize the actions of the perpetrators by making them victims as well.


----------



## chinto (Apr 14, 2012)

if its a HOME INVASION... shoot first, talk latter!  people get killed regularly by home invaders regardless of age!  I would say that he did the right thing at the right time. in my state burglary of a dwelling is a deadly force issue in black letter law.


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2012)

Wonder if he tried warning he was armed or police were on the way first before shooting at the kids?

Unfortunate, but the result doesn't match the crime IMO. Would be a horrible position to be in, I feel for the defender.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Buka (Apr 14, 2012)

A shame. 
But I can think of worse endings.


----------



## chinto (Apr 15, 2012)

I would say this, it is always a shame when a life must be taken, and I feel for the man who had to shoot.  the other thing is that burglary let alone home invasion is a dangerous business as many of the burglary and all most all home invasion robbers are armed and willing to kill!  SO,  I guess all I can say is judge if its a shoot now or die, by your guts reaction, and be willing to do what must be done, or be willing to die perhaps.  Only YOU can CHOOSE if and when it comes that time.


----------

