From the Huffpost, filed by Mark Hanrahan:
Ding-Dong-Ditch Shooting: Michael Bishop Of Louisville Charged With Shooting 12-Year-Old Over Prank
A Kentucky man has been charged with attempted murder after he shot a 12-year-old boy in the back for ringing his doorbell during a game of Ding Dong Ditch.
Jason Eberle of Louisville, was playing the game, which involves someone ringing a doorbell and running away, on Monday night with friends. The New York Post reports that after the kids rang 56-year-old Michael Bishop's bell he came out onto his porch armed with a shotgun and
Bishop was arrested and has been charged with attempted murder. The Louisville Courier Journal reports that he was released Tuesday night after posting $10,000 bail.
Eberle was hit in the shoulder and the back and suffered two collapsed lungs in the incident. He is currently being treated in hospital where his condition is described as "improving".
Eberle's uncle, Bart McMahon, told Kentucky's WLKY "It's outrageous, it's intolerable and that's why we have prisons for people who can't confine their behavior within the bounds of law."
"If he was so bothered, the best thing for him to do would have been to call the parents or yell at the kids. [The shooting was] not a self-defense maneuver; that is nothing but a flat-out assault on an innocent child."
Neighbor Wayne McDowell, speaking to WHAS11 described the horrific state of the boy's injuries.
Story continues below
I wonder how the "Castle Doctrine" currently allowed in Florida and proposed in other states would rule on this.
ReplyDeleteWhat a dick.
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteHow could the castle doctrine allow the attempted murder of a youngster running away as fast as he could? Shotguns are for killing big game. This isn't a cartoon. Even the police aren't allowed to shoot a man in the back. I just had the pleasure of witnessing a foot chase in La Jolla last Sunday. I was backing out of my parking space at the library when I heard three guys in the alley hauling ass on foot. The cops were yelling at the guy. I saw him pitch some stolen property down the entrance to an underground garage. Sadly for him, it just hit a metal grating. The second cop stooped and picked it up while the lead cop just kept on running like mad. It would be a helluva lot easier to catch the thief if they could just shoot him, n'est ce pas? But dig baby, you just can't do that.
Here's what a couple of locals had to say in the comments section of the TV station blog.
So the family thinks this is outrageous? Someone tell me what the heck is a 12 year old doing out at 10 pm at night terrorizing homeowners? Maybe the family needs to do some parenting. If their kid was home he wouldnt have gotten shot. They need to be thankful that i wasn't the one that was pranked. My husband is a heart patient and we are senior citizens. I might have been a better shot. In short, keep yours kids home at night and teach them a little respect for others
They need to charge the loser parents with willful neglect of a dependent. There is no reason some 12 year old is out running the streets at 10 pm on Sunday night. That doesn't excuse Mr. Bishop from shooting them in the back but they need to learn to respect other people's rights to be left alone. When are these idiot parents and the idiots of Kentuckiana going to get that point. As far as this stupidity of ringing doorbells, go get a life and do something constructive like build a project.
Both comments basically defend the actions of the shooter, although the second commenter stops short of condoning murder. In-fucking-credible.
That's one less idiot who will play "Ding Dong Ditch" and one less idiot with self-control issues on our streets.
ReplyDeleteTwo birds with one shell, so to speak.
YOU are an IDIOT
DeleteYes Flying Junior, in-fucking-credible. Just like our very own AztecRed.
ReplyDelete"I wonder how the "Castle Doctrine" currently allowed in Florida and proposed in other states would rule on this."
ReplyDeleteThe same way that 'castle doctrine' already in law in Kentucky will "rule on it". The man is charged with attempted murder.
FWM, the man is charged; his defense may very well be the castle doctrine.
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty reasonable for a kid that age to be out at 10 pm playing in his own neighborhood the first weekend after school was probably let out for the year. Kids in summer blow off steam. I grew up playing 'ditch' - our version was more a form of twighlight / early dark hide and seek, that was part of the fun. But no doorbell ringing or otherwise bothering someone inside their house. We did however run across the yards of many neighbors.
The adults in the neighborhood, parents and just neighbors, typically would socialize with each other, sometimes sitting on front steps, somtimes wandering from house to house, while we kids played, and dogs romped with kids. Plenty of parenting going on, and plenty of neighborhood cohesion.
The very concept that someone could pull a gun and shoot a kid was not even in anyone's wildest imagination.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteCastle Doctrine will not save the man from prosecution in Kentucky either.
In spite of what the antis refer to as a "shoot first" law, in truth, Castle Doctrine does not change the rules for the use of deadly force.
States can vary in the details and definitions, but generally, to claim justifiable homicide by self defense, one must be able to satisfy three conditions. First, the situation can not be your fault. You can not have created the situation or escalated a confrontation to one of deadly force. Second, you must have not been able to retreat or, depending upon the state, did not have a duty to retreat. Finally, you must have been in fear of your life or serious bodily harm.
In states without castle doctrine, the defendant must prove all three conditions were met. Not one or two but all three. In states with castle doctrine, it merely shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor. The state must only now prove that one of those conditions were not met--if one condition of the three is not present, than you cannot claim justifiable homicide by defense even with castle doctrine.
That is what Castle Doctrine does. It does not lesson or change those conditions at all like the anti's would have everyone believe. Remember, they do not have the truth on their side so they usually have to resort to fear mongering when arguing against a law like castle doctrine.
Obviously, from what was presented in the article anyway, the man will not have a claim of self defense with or without castle doctrine.
"Plenty of parenting going on, and plenty of neighborhood cohesion.
ReplyDeleteThe very concept that someone could pull a gun and shoot a kid was not even in anyone's wildest imagination."
Dog Gone is dead on. This is what has changed. We live in a totally different world than we did just a couple of decades ago. Crime has increased and so has violence. People do not know or socialize with their neighbors and there is no community cohesion. Gun availability is far more controlled than it was 50 years ago yet gun violence is soaring. MikeB and some anti's blame the inanimate object as if the mere presence of a gun causes criminal intent. At least Dog Gone recognizes that it is the criminal that has grown and evolved into something more dangerous.
Dog gone: “the man is charged; his defense may very well be the castle doctrine.”
ReplyDeleteAnd when the castle doctrine doesn’t save him I don’t expect we’ll see the gun control side drop all the rhetoric about “shoot first” and “license to murder”.
FWM pointed out that "Castle Doctrine does not change the rules for the use of deadly force."
ReplyDeleteTrue dat, but the Castle Doctrine Mentality that you guys espouse certainly does.
"Crime has increased and so has violence."
ReplyDeleteAnd the ease of obtaining gunz, legal or otherwise, has much to do with that.
Mike, Castle Doctrine mentality, whatever that is, does not change the law.
ReplyDelete"And the ease of obtaining gunz, legal or otherwise, has much to do with that."
Demo, wrong yet again as usual. We had far less violence less than 50 years ago when guns could be mail ordered to your house or bought at the local hardware store by anyone and there was no such thing as a background check or even a government form.
FWM pointed out, "Mike, Castle Doctrine mentality, whatever that is, does not change the law."
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but it sure changes the attitudes of gun owners with respect to shooting intruders too quickly.