# 12 year saves mother by killing her attacker



## KenpoTex (Apr 2, 2008)

This kid is a hero, he saw his mother being attacked and acted decisively to end the threat. Stories like this make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Any prosecutor that would file charges in a case like this needs to be monkey-stomped.



> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...008040101090_pf.html
> 
> Md. Boy, 12, Kills Man Attacking Mother
> Officials Undecided On Filing Charges
> ...



Please click the above link for the whole article!


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 2, 2008)

A story that is quite tragic at it's heart, for all the individuals involved .

It makes you wonder what got into that somewhat elderly man (either psychologically or chemically) to make him behave so?


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 2, 2008)

The boy did what anyone should have done, that is do whatever it takes to safe a mother Life.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 2, 2008)

> "I knew I had to kill him so he would stop hurting my mother," he said.


 My thought on this is yes indeed perhaps to his mind that was the only alternative... still part of me wishes he hadn't *said* it. That way if any charges were pressed they'd be accidental homicide. He acted with intent... and rightly so I'll agree but voicing that intent is what makes a difference in court. Saying something to the effect of "I had to do something to stop him... I was scared and he wouldn't listen to me and I was afraid he would go after me next..." This would protect him more in court than the above statement. 

I agree it is tragic. A child that young shouldn't have to be subject to killing someone... even in defense. Of course he most likely didn't mean to kill him. Slashing open an artery was a lucky swipe of the knife. 

I'm just looking at what probably the prosecutor will be looking at. It's their job and it's the kids' defense attorney that's suppose to show otherwise. Likely the jury (again, if charges are pressed) will hear the story and decide the kid did what he had to do.


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2008)

The prime imperative: protect those who protect you. A child is mostly completely dependent on his or her mother; a threat to the mother's life is in the same instant a threat to your own. I suspect we're to some extent hard-wired for this. Hundreds of millions of years of survival testing will pretty much have drummed _that _much into our neuroanatomy, you/'d figure.

I agree with *kenpotex*: I can see no valid basis for pressing charges. *MA-C* is right: it might have been better if he hadn't said what he said. But all that that statement could show was lethal intent, and the use of the knife itself is probably good enough evidence for _that_, so it's not clear how much worse what the child said could make the situation. And I think a clever defense attorney could take a lot of the sting out of the statement. The important point at issue is, is it justified for a child to respond with deadly force to a deadly threat to the parent he's absolutely dependent on? I think any even half-competent defense attorney could make that case persuasively enough for a judge or jury to decide that the 3rd-person defense provision would kick in. 

And really, what would we _want_ the child to have done in this horrible situation? He had only milliseconds to decide, possibly, between his mother's life and that of a virtual stranger. As I say, his reaction was the one that corresponds to the difference between lineages surviving vs. dying out....


----------



## grydth (Apr 2, 2008)

I trust most media accounts as far as I could throw the press that printed them....

Just for the sake of debate, presuming the account to be accurate - - - it is a sad sign of the times that the government would deliberate over 4 seconds on charging this brave young man with a felony. Once upon a time, the decision over letting a nut murder mom on the kitchen floor or defending your family would've been a no brainer, the young man hailed as a hero by the police and the community rallying around the family.

What a sheeple society this is becoming.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 2, 2008)

I in general feel in accord with the statements above.  In similar circumstances, I too would've used whatever means necessary to stop the attack on my mother.

I would just caution against over-playing the 'child' aspect tho'.  That supposed child massed more than I did for most of my adult life (I was about 150lb right up to the time I settled down with my missus a handful of years ago).


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 2, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I would just caution against over-playing the 'child' aspect tho'. That supposed child massed more than I did for most of my adult life.


Yes, I caught that, too.  The 12-yr-old 'child' has several inches and 20 to 25 pounds on me.

IF everything proceeded as the child and Mom say, then I agree that there is no reason to press charges.  However, I believe the police have a responsibility to investigate, to see if that is in fact what happened.


----------



## tellner (Apr 2, 2008)

I'm sorry he had to kill the guy.
I'm glad that he was able to do what was necessary.

The police always say they're still investigating, and the DA always says he's considering charges. 

I remember two cases from years back. In one a blind-from-birth guy was mugged. He took the mugger down, let him up when the guy promised to behave and threw him on his head with fatal skull-fracture goodness when the guy threatened to shoot him. The DA spent a day or two "considering" and finally decided not to seek an indictment. 

In the other a burglar broke into the house and was strangling/raping Mom. Teenage daughter stabbed him puncturing the aorta. Spurt. Gurgle. Thump. Again the DA thoughtfully weighed his options and finally decided that charges were not warranted.

I really doubt that a True Bill would have been returned in either case. If one had I can't imagine a long trial much less a conviction. And I don't think one will be here. They have to at least appear to be taking the matter seriously.


----------



## tellner (Apr 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> My thought on this is yes indeed perhaps to his mind that was the only alternative... still part of me wishes he hadn't *said* it. That way if any charges were pressed they'd be accidental homicide. He acted with intent... and rightly so I'll agree but voicing that intent is what makes a difference in court. Saying something to the effect of "I had to do something to stop him... I was scared and he wouldn't listen to me and I was afraid he would go after me next..." This would protect him more in court than the above statement.



He didn't do anything wrong. If he'd said it was an accident there would have been an issue of negligent homicide. Or a prosecutor could have said "He acted in a blind panic." Neither would be good for him.

He knew what he was doing.
He knew why he was doing it.
The first thing he tried to do was avoid the use of force by talking.
That didn't work.
He was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm to an innocent.
The danger was immediate.
He had exhausted all other reasonable options.
The deceased was behaving in a violent and irrational manner.

The only real mistake he made was talking to the Press.
Never EVER talk to the Press about a self defense case until the trial is over and you can be sure there will not be lawsuits.

Other than that it's nearly a textbook example of "The Judicious Use of Deadly Force".


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 2, 2008)

tellner said:


> He didn't do anything wrong. If he'd said it was an accident there would have been an issue of negligent homicide. Or a prosecutor could have said "He acted in a blind panic." Neither would be good for him.
> 
> He knew what he was doing.
> He knew why he was doing it.
> ...



I didn't say he did anything wrong. But it is after all their word against the dead guy's. Hopefully the police will investigate throughly and come to the hopeful conclusion that we are all wanting... that it was a defense situation and the boy should be viewed as a hero. 
But you're right... if the press comes to you before the trial (if any) the only two words you need to do is taken from the politicians... no comment.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 2, 2008)

The kid did the right thing. In spite of his words, I'm sure the reality of it is he acted on instinct. There wasn't time to "premeditate". He first shouted for the man to stop, when the attacker didn't, he went to step two, which probably all  happened in less than 60 seconds. 

The fortunate thing is the man was "combative with officers even as he was heavily bleeding" which shows the state of attack he was in. Can you imagine what he was like without the officers and no wound? Crazy right?


----------



## BrandiJo (Apr 2, 2008)

im 5'5 and 160, and im 21 ... This kid acted in self defense i have every belief that no charges will be filed, however given the currant state of things, i wish him well and pray that he does not open his mouth to the media again.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 2, 2008)

The boy did the right thing in a difficult situation.  There were other "right" things he could have done (called the police, hit the man over the head with a chair, etc.) that would have been less likely to be fatal - however, his size notwithstanding, he is a _child_ - and under the circumstances, he did very well in a very difficult situation.  Unfortunately, whether legal charges are filed or not, he will have to live with the consequences of his actions - and legal issues aside, taking a life, no matter the reason, is a very serious act; doing so in such a person, up-close fashion will only exacerbate the difficulties this boy will (hopefully) have in dealing with this issue.  I hope, for his sake, that his mother seeks counseling to help him deal with the emotional fallout he will (hopefully) feel in the future.


----------



## Hawke (Apr 2, 2008)

Assuming the description of events are accurate I doubt any jury/judge will find him guilty.  

Hopefully no one will seek revenge (physical or legal).

The kid had to make a fast decision under extreme stressful conditions.

If anyone attacked someone I deeply care about like that, I would do whatever is necessary to protect her life in self defense.

Can you imagine if some stranger attacked your mom?


----------



## tellner (Apr 2, 2008)

Counseling may or may not help. Very often when people are clear about why they did what they did and believe that it was the right thing to do counseling muddies and confuses. There's also an excellent chance that any but the best sort of counselor will project onto the boy how he feels the kid *should* feel. That said it should be available if his mother thinks it is called for. 

He will certainly undergo some changes at the hands of his peers. Many people have a prurient/puritanical view of violence, especially deadly violence. It will come out in how they relate to him. Kids who don't have well-integrated values may react even more poorly than adults.

I just hope that there are enough people he looks up to - adults and peers - who will let him know that he did the right thing and that they respect him for it. That will help more than anything.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 3, 2008)

tellner said:


> Counseling may or may not help. Very often when people are clear about why they did what they did and believe that it was the right thing to do counseling muddies and confuses. There's also an excellent chance that any but the best sort of counselor will project onto the boy how he feels the kid *should* feel. That said it should be available if his mother thinks it is called for.
> 
> He will certainly undergo some changes at the hands of his peers. Many people have a prurient/puritanical view of violence, especially deadly violence. It will come out in how they relate to him. Kids who don't have well-integrated values may react even more poorly than adults.
> 
> I just hope that there are enough people he looks up to - adults and peers - who will let him know that he did the right thing and that they respect him for it. That will help more than anything.



Counseling is only as good as the person administering it. The best ones I find are the ones who don't project anything of their own values (but rather society's) into the patient. Hard to do and even harder to find but I've known some who do work using the method of simply being a guide to the person struggling with whatever. They don't answer questions directly, but rather, they allow the patient to find the answers within themselves and only nudge them in the right direction. 

Your point about kids not having a good set of values ingrained is a good one... and an important one. Repeatedly we've seen on this forum the results of a lack of good solid values that are worthy (in our eyes here on MT anyway) to instill into young people. Those without turn out to be the young punks that we decry when we read stories about abusive behavior towards elderly, smaller children than themselves, poor attitudes towards police and so on and so on. 

This kid whether consciously or unconsciously, had acted instinctively. He saw a threat to his own survival and acted upon it. Being human he took the most viable choice there was. 
Again, here on MT, we've talked about making use of whatever is within our grasp/reach to defend ourselves. This kid saw the knife and grabbed it. He knows (like many other kids) that a knife is a formidable weapon and an effective one. Note, I said like many other kids... as an adult the knife would've also been the choice weapon rather than say a chair or something else that would've been just as effective. If there were a gun present in the house (even if it were in the next room) it's doubtless that the kid would've gone for it because again, he would know that it's an effective weapon. 
Kids can move surprisingly fast when well motivated. 

Changes at the hands of his peers? Again I have no argument and am in total agreement. But peers with a "prurient/puritanical view of violence, especially deadly violence" I highly doubt it. Remember he's 12 yrs. old. Think of the types of video games that he and/or his peers would be playing: Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Call Of Duty and so on and so on... Just because they're 12 doesn't mean they can't get their hands on these games, in spite of the parental guidance warning on the box. 
I'd dare say his peers would likely make him a hero and begin looking up to him. Maybe not in front of their parents but when they're alone together... yeah, I'd think they would. I got praise from my peers when I beat the crap out of an older student during my years in jr. highschool. Got yelled at and admonished by the teachers and my parents... but man, my friends for a while thought I was the man! 

The kid will need some long term help. The mom as well. Traumatic thing to look up and see blood spray/splatter on her kitchen floor/walls the man who was hurting her dead, and her "baby" standing there blood on himself and that "look in his eyes".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 3, 2008)

tellner said:


> Counseling may or may not help. Very often when people are clear about why they did what they did and believe that it was the right thing to do counseling muddies and confuses. There's also an excellent chance that any but the best sort of counselor will project onto the boy how he feels the kid *should* feel. That said it should be available if his mother thinks it is called for.
> 
> He will certainly undergo some changes at the hands of his peers. Many people have a prurient/puritanical view of violence, especially deadly violence. It will come out in how they relate to him. Kids who don't have well-integrated values may react even more poorly than adults.
> 
> I just hope that there are enough people he looks up to - adults and peers - who will let him know that he did the right thing and that they respect him for it. That will help more than anything.


 That's exactly right......ESPECIALLY if the counselor has never been through such a life or death situation......often times counselors really have no frame of reference for what REALLY goes on in such an incident.  The kid SHOULD feel justified in doing what he did, yet some counselors believe you SHOULD feel guilty!


That's why police officers who have been involved in a lethal force situation are directed to other officers who have been involved in those situations....not someone who hasn't.  And the most important thing to hear, be it soldiers, police officer, or joe public, when you've had to hurt or kill someone in LEGITIMATE self-defense is......no matter what you're feeling, you DID the RIGHT THING!  Guilt is NORMAL....and NOT feeling guilt is NORMAL!  Neither one makes you a bad person.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 3, 2008)

Kid did the right thing if the facts of the case are as presented in the story.....pure and simple.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 3, 2008)

Just a though regarding the comments about how what he said ("I had to kill him...") might work against him...
While what he said may not have been the best choice of words, he's only 12, he's not going to have the background/training that most of us have.  While there may be a time where we find ourselves in a situation where we know we have to kill the guy to survive, we're trained to say "I was in fear for my life and was just trying to make him stop" (or something of that nature).  Better yet, we shut up entirely and let our lawyer do the talking.  Hopefully, this won't count against him.



Kacey said:


> The boy did the right thing in a difficult situation. There were other "right" things he could have done (called the police, hit the man over the head with a chair, etc.) that would have been less likely to be fatal...


 
The problem I have with your statement is: what would have happened if he _had_ tried a "less lethal" alternative (hitting him with a chair, etc.) and it didn't stop the threat?  To do that would possibly be to give up his only chance to actually prevail against the person.  I personally feel that there _are_ situations where the *immediate* use of deadly force is not only morally justified, but also tactically correct.
And seriously, what good would it have done to call the cops?  Does anyone really think that they would have been able to show up in time to keep the guy from choking the kids mom to death?


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2008)

Kacey said:


> There were other "right" things he could have done (called the police, hit the man over the head with a chair, etc.) that would have been less likely to be fatal


 
He needed to stop a deadly attack quickly. 

If he'd called the police his mother would have died. 

Hitting the guy over the head with a chair probably would not have done anything. If it had he would have had to defend himself against an enraged, murderous grown man or hit him hard enough to render him unconscious for a significant amount of time. That generally means a persistent coma. In other words, we're back to deadly force but deadly force.

In a situation like that keeping the innocent people alive is the only real concern. Doing it with as little harm to the attacker is a minor grace note to be played if you have the luxury. He didn't have the sheer physicality to easily and safely overpower the bad guy. He wasn't highly trained in arcane ways of harmlessly immobilizing people and didn't have access to specialized weaponry designed to do just that. He had to make a life or death decision within seconds in a chaotic environment. I wouldn't dream of second guessing the choice.

Grown men who are trying hard to kill with their bare hands is on a whole different level than what people see in the dojo. It's a far cry from what most ever go through including a lot of police officers. As usual I have to quote the great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes "Calm reflection is not possible in the face of an upraised knife."


----------



## Mark L (Apr 3, 2008)

Kacey said:


> ... doing so in such a person, up-close fashion will only exacerbate the difficulties this boy will (hopefully) have in dealing with this issue. I hope, for his sake, that his mother seeks counseling to help him deal with the emotional fallout he will (hopefully) feel in the future.


I don't understand your statements. Are you saying you hope this boy will have difficulties in dealing with the situation, and you hope he will feel emotional fallout? If so, I can't agree at all. Hopefully, he will rest comfortable with the knowledge that he protected his mother from this felonious dirtbag. I'd prefer that the attacker survived, at least for a little while, so that _*he*_ could feel difficulties and emotional fallout from _*his*_ actions. Let's keep in mind who the victims are, wishing them more turmoil is simply wrong.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 3, 2008)

I think you slightly misheard what *Kacey* meant Mark.  My understanding is that she wasn't _wishing_ any adverse emotional consequences upon the boy but rather venturing the opinion that, by certain moral lights, it would be better for him to 'deal' with the emotions of remorse (whether justified or not) than to develop a hard-shell around it and ignore it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 3, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> Just a though regarding the comments about how what he said ("I had to kill him...") might work against him...
> While what he said may not have been the best choice of words, he's only 12, he's not going to have the background/training that most of us have. While there may be a time where we find ourselves in a situation where we know we have to kill the guy to survive, we're trained to say "I was in fear for my life and was just trying to make him stop" (or something of that nature). Better yet, we shut up entirely and let our lawyer do the talking. Hopefully, this won't count against him.
> 
> 
> ...


 
The truth is the 'I had to kill him' won't really hurt him in CRIMINAL court, where the discussion is mainly objective reasonableness.....if you were justified in using lethal force, you were.....and the burden of proof rests on the state. 

Where that statement is MOST dangerous is the inevitable lawsuit most of us would face for wrongful death.....and where the burden of proof is on merely proponderance of the evidence......but, as this kids mom was living in a boarding house, I really doubt he has any assets to make it worth some attorney's while to sue him.

MORE dangerous in a criminal trial is some statement like 'It was an accident, I didn't mean to do it!'.......it's possible for a sharp prosecutor to consider that evidence that you WEREN'T acting in self-defense, because the death wasn't the result of a DELIBERATE justifiable action, but NEGLIGENCE!



So your advice is SPOT ON! 'I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO MY ATTORNEY BEFORE MAKING ANY STATMENTS!'

And for a COP! 'I INVOKE MY RIGHTS UNDER GARITY!'


----------



## Mark L (Apr 3, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I think you slightly misheard what *Kacey* meant Mark.  My understanding is that she wasn't _wishing_ any adverse emotional consequences upon the boy but rather venturing the opinion that, by certain moral lights, it would be better for him to 'deal' with the emotions of remorse (whether justified or not) than to develop a hard-shell around it and ignore it.


That's not how it reads to me, but I hope you're correct.  My intent is not to be argumentative, but to recognize that this young boy did nothing wrong.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 3, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> The problem I have with your statement is: what would have happened if he _had_ tried a "less lethal" alternative (hitting him with a chair, etc.) and it didn't stop the threat?  To do that would possibly be to give up his only chance to actually prevail against the person.  I personally feel that there _are_ situations where the *immediate* use of deadly force is not only morally justified, but also tactically correct.
> And seriously, what good would it have done to call the cops?  Does anyone really think that they would have been able to show up in time to keep the guy from choking the kids mom to death?



I repeat:  the boy did the right thing in a difficult situation.  I would add that few children his age would do as well.  However, it is at least possible that there were other options available - what, we cannot know, as we were not there.



Mark L said:


> I don't understand your statements. Are you saying you hope this boy will have difficulties in dealing with the situation, and you hope he will feel emotional fallout? If so, I can't agree at all. Hopefully, he will rest comfortable with the knowledge that he protected his mother from this felonious dirtbag. I'd prefer that the attacker survived, at least for a little while, so that _*he*_ could feel difficulties and emotional fallout from _*his*_ actions. Let's keep in mind who the victims are, wishing them more turmoil is simply wrong.





Sukerkin said:


> I think you slightly misheard what *Kacey* meant Mark.  My understanding is that she wasn't _wishing_ any adverse emotional consequences upon the boy but rather venturing the opinion that, by certain moral lights, it would be better for him to 'deal' with the emotions of remorse (whether justified or not) than to develop a hard-shell around it and ignore it.





Mark L said:


> That's not how it reads to me, but I hope you're correct.  My intent is not to be argumentative, but to recognize that this young boy did nothing wrong.



Sukerkin is correct.  So many people are concentrating on _what_ he did, and very few are discussing how his actions are going to affect him in the future.  He _should_ feel remorse; I would _expect_ him to feel remorse - but consider:  he is, likely, being told repeatedly what a wonderful thing he did in saving his mother - and don't get me wrong, it _was_ a wonderful thing.  At his age, it will be very difficult for him to differentiate between the praise he receives for his action _in saving his mother_, and the remorse he feels for his action _in causing the death of another person_.  This is a very hard thing to deal with for adults; how much harder will it be for an adolescent who is, I suspect, receiving conflicting messages about what he did?  Nor would I be surprised if, in the course of telling him what a great job he did, people tell him he needs feel no remorse because it was the right action at the time - so he will then have difficulty dealing with his remorse, and possibly even drive it underground, thinking that he is wrong to feel that way - and then it will fester.

IMHO, the boy needs to talk to someone uninvolved in the event, someone outside his family, who can understand what he did and help him work through what I expect are very strong, and very conflicting, emotions about what he did.  The exact qualifications the person needs to have will vary based on the needs of the child.  He may need long-term counseling; on the other hand, it's possible that a conversation with a LEO or someone with similar experience may help him understand that what he did was right _in that situation_, but not in others, and that it is normal to feel both proud and remorseful.  It may be that neither situation is right for him - but he needs to work through what happened with an appropriate person(s).


----------



## Mark L (Apr 3, 2008)

Kacey,
I recognize and agree with your point, my bad for misreading the intent of your post.  Essentially, my issue is with the boy feeling remorse.  I suspect he, as with most of us, feels horrible about what had to happen to protect his mother.  But I don't think he should feel remorse about his actions, he did the right thing.  Counseling, if needed, should absolutely reinforce that notion.

I have two 12 year old sons.  I can't imagine what I would say to comfort them in a similar situation, other than to say they rightly dispatched a horrible human being that was attempting to deprive them of the precious company of their mother.  Sometimes the ends justify the means.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 4, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Essentially, my issue is with the boy feeling remorse.  I suspect he, as with most of us, feels horrible about what had to happen to protect his mother.  But I don't think he should feel remorse about his actions, he did the right thing.  Counseling, if needed, should absolutely reinforce that notion.



I agree here. He did the right thing. I understand the conflict Kacey is concerned about, it's a valid argument. Counseling would need to focus on helping the child process the event. It would have to be reinforced that it was a terrible thing that happened and he did the best he could under the circumstances. He should be helped to process the remorse over the EVENT which occurred without being told he should feel "guilty" over his actions. 

I disagree on the point that he had other options that could have resulted in a better outcome. If this is brought up in counseling it would surely hurt him more than help him. The man was killing his mother. He was strangling her. Calling the police and waiting for their arrival would have been too late. Whatever form of defense he chose had to be sure of it would have either not fazed the attacker, or raised his level of rage and we could be reading about the murder of a 12-year-old boy and his mother. 

I don't believe the boy's intent was to kill. It was a "lucky" strike. I believe he meant to incapacitate, but not kill. He should have someone to talk things out with, to process the event and deal with whatever troubles him most over this. I would just hate to see him led into unwarranted guilt over his actions.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 4, 2008)

Kacey said:


> He _should_ feel remorse; I would _expect_ him to feel remorse - but consider: he is, likely, being told repeatedly what a wonderful thing he did in saving his mother - and don't get me wrong, it _was_ a wonderful thing. At his age, it will be very difficult for him to differentiate between the praise he receives for his action _in saving his mother_, and the remorse he feels for his action _in causing the death of another person_.


 
I don't agree that he _should_ feel remorse.  The way I look at it, if one's actions were justified, you might regret the necessity of those actions, but you shouldn't feel guilty (or allow yourself to be made to feel guilty).  Unfortunately, due to his age and impressionability (is that a word? if not, I'm calling it one ), I'm sure some counselor will get a hold of him and really screw him up.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 4, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> The way I look at it, if one's actions were justified, you might regret the necessity of those actions, but you shouldn't feel guilty (or allow yourself to be made to feel guilty).



You said it better than I. :asian:


----------



## chinto (Apr 5, 2008)

give the kid a medal!!! and publicize it widely when you do!!! bar the attacker's relatives from suing and other wise help the kid and mom out.. and get her and him some training in good martial arts and weapons!!


----------



## Taiji_Mantis (Apr 13, 2008)

I will be interested to see how this case unfolds.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Apr 13, 2008)

grydth said:


> I trust most media accounts as far as I could throw the press that printed them....
> 
> Just for the sake of debate, presuming the account to be accurate - - - it is a sad sign of the times that the government would deliberate over 4 seconds on charging this brave young man with a felony. Once upon a time, the decision over letting a nut murder mom on the kitchen floor or defending your family would've been a no brainer, the young man hailed as a hero by the police and the community rallying around the family.
> 
> What a sheeple society this is becoming.


 
It's in PG county Maryland, so I can beleive they are contemplating charges.
 See in liberal states like Maryland, the Govt. doews not want you to protect yourself, that is their job. Once you accept their protection (such as it is) you shall accept their control.

 I live in Virginia, here we are free and this kid would all but get a parade.
Their should be zero thought between protecting your own over someone else. W kill bugs all the time, same damn thing when you thin about it.
 I hope the kid comes out alright, he has killed, that's enough weight on his heart as it is.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Apr 13, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> Just a though regarding the comments about how what he said ("I had to kill him...") might work against him...
> While what he said may not have been the best choice of words, he's only 12, he's not going to have the background/training that most of us have. While there may be a time where we find ourselves in a situation where we know we have to kill the guy to survive, we're trained to say "I was in fear for my life and was just trying to make him stop" (or something of that nature). Better yet, we shut up entirely and let our lawyer do the talking. Hopefully, this won't count against him.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Exactly, cops are for clean up in situations like this and and the best way to take the guy out at the time is what should be used, be it a bat, a gun or whatever. (It's a bit of justice that he used the knife that hurt his mother.)
 I was told as a youth, younger than this boy that fighting for your life is serious and you do whatever it takes to win, especially cheat. Never shoot a man in the face you could shot in the back of the head."
 That dont mean go around murdering people, but it means if you come across what this boy did, see your loved one having a fatal technique being used on them and blood, you dont say anything, you kill him while he is still unaware of you.

The idea that him saying he thought of he had to kill him can harm his case shows you how mamby pamby our system is becoming.
 Of coarse that's what the boy should think "Kill! KILL! KILL!" is even better.


----------

