Caleb A. Gordley, 16, was killed inside his neighbor's Sterling, Va.,
home early Sunday morning. Gordley was a junior at Park View High
School, and played for the school's varsity basketball team. (Courtesy of Shawn Gordley) Local news reports
The Loudoun County Sheriff's Office says Caleb A. Gordley, 16, was shot by the owner of the home on the 45900 block of Pullman Court around 2:30 a.m. The house's alarm sounded, and the homeowner found Gordley on the stairwell, police say.This one could very well be another murder disguised as a DGU. Being a drunk 16-year-old and entering someone's house does not merit death. But you won't hear that from the frightened and fanatical gun-rights advocates. To them, the downside of hesitating is too much. They shoot to kill as soon as someone dares to violate their sacred boundaries.
Gordley, a Park View High School student, died on the scene. The homeowner's name has not been released.
The sheriff's office says Gordley lived on the same street where the shooting took place, and that they believe he entered the home through a window in the rear of the home.
Gordley had apparently been drinking, and a Twitter account that appears to be his did post about a party happening Saturday night.
Shawn Gordley, the teen's father, made his comments on Twitter:
And naturally once the delinquent kid is dead, there's only the home owners side of the story which always includes that he felt threatened. What he usually feels is outrage and anger that some punk would dare to do something like that. He shoots without making any effort to determine if his life is really in danger and he does so totally justified by the law and all the other self-righteous castle-doctrine proponents.
What's your opinion?
How easy it is to avoid being killed by a homeowner: Don't invade someone else's home.
ReplyDeleteBut do tell us, what would a drunk teenager be doing coming up the stairs? Teach the family free throws? Conduct a Bible study? You call us frightened and fanatical. You're delusional.
It could have been anything. He could have been trying to visit his buddy who lives there or maybe he was going to ask the home owner about the meaning of life - drunk kids do stupid shit like that all the time.
DeleteBut in your house like in this one we'd never know.
This is what Mike would prefer happen instead of a DGU - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/nyregion/burglar-rapes-young-girl.html
DeleteSomeone entering a home at night without the permission of the owner and without exigent circumstances is there to do harm. The act of entering illegally is a harm. Whatever else will follow isn't a matter of practical consideration.
DeleteBut again, why don't you tell us under what circumstances you'd accept the shooting of a home invader as acceptable? Give us your standard.
I think that we need to find the a-hole that allowed him to get his underage hands on the alcohol, If he was not drunk this would not have happened.
DeleteGreg, I've posted a few examples of what I considered to be legitimate DGUs. Have you forgotten those? You know very well what I consider a good one and you also know what I consider a questionable one. That's why you insist on that made-up justification that "Someone entering a home at night without the permission of the owner and without exigent circumstances is there to do harm. The act of entering illegally is a harm."
DeleteSometimes the "harm" is minimal, but you don't give a fuck because you want the right to kill someone for entering your home, period.
I don't want the right to kill someone. I do, however, insist upon the right to defend myself and others. That includes the use of deadly force if I deem it necessary. I know of no one who says the plan, if he or she is forced to use deadly force, is to shoot to kill. Instead, it is shoot to stop. I know that I'm very happy if I don't have to shoot at all. If I decide I must do so, I'd rather the other person not die. If he does, that was not my goal. That said, I will shoot until the threat ceases (what constitutes the cessation of threat varies with circumstances). Yes, he may die. I regret that. I do not regret that nearly as much as I would regret not making that decision and seeing something bad happen to my family. The fact is, there is precious little time in which to decide. I have never been in a situation in which I've thought "I should ready a weapon because I may need to shoot this person in several minutes". I have, however, encountered situations in which the decision had to be made RIGHT NOW!
DeleteI know we differ on this, Mike. I'm not trying to argue as much as explain. I just don't see how a person who invades another's home can be expected to have any reasonable expectation of safety. I have reasons for not entering other's houses uninvited. First and foremost, it's not my house, so why on earth would I enter without an invitation? That one was drilled into me by my parents...sort of like, if it's not yours don't touch it. Second, I proceed on the belief that the folks there are just as protective of their family as I am of mine. They're not likely to take my uninvited presence well. Third, while I might not get shot, I understand that those homeowners, like the vast majority of others, would have very little time in which to assess the threat I pose. So, I don't enter without invitation.
There's this tendency for some people, speaking out of fear, anger, hurt or outrage to look at some shootings that result in death but are ruled "DGUs" and complain that the shooter "got off scot-free". As a rule, people who've had to squeeze the trigger on another person (even when they say they'd do it again under the same circumstances) know this is simply not true. There is no being unaffected by making and following through on that decision, especially if the person who is shot dies. A person who does that, even with complete justification, is never the same. And that's how it should be. No one should be able to take a life and remain unaffected. I can live with that.
"Sometimes the "harm" is minimal, but you don't give a fuck because you want the right to kill someone for entering your home, period."
DeleteForgive us, we should just let the poor youth in and offer him some tea while he robs, rapes, and murders
I didn't ask for examples. I asked for your standard.
DeleteHow nice it must be to be omniscient and know enough about this situation that you can declare that it was a murder.
ReplyDeleteHow did he get a hold of alcohol? It had to pass through an adult before getting to the minor. That is why we need more restrictions on the responsible drinking adults, but no- we can't let common sense stand in the way of Jadegold's easy access to high octane craft microbrews, can we? It should be a felony to hand another person (regardless of age) a beer unless the recipients ID is check by a licensed alcohol retailer. They are the only ones qualified and approved to read a DOB and determine if that person is under 21. Don't worry, we'll allow exemptions inside your home or curtilage (but God have mercy on your soul if you throw a yard party!)
ReplyDeleteHigh alcohol beers whose only point is to get you a drunk as possible as fast as possible without having to take the time to open another beer, obviously needs to be banned. Nevermind that we're exempting higher alcohol wines- these are meant to be sipped, not spray guzzled.
Wouldn't this save lives?
These gun control zombies don't give one little turd about saving lives, the goal is gun confiscation. That is the only thing they care about.
Deleteorlin sellers
Seriously, if this was a 16 year old kid with a gun, your comments would be, "where did he get the gun, and who can we send to jail"? You didn't ask that about the alcohol- in fact, you sounded just like one of those pro-gun apologists. You would go off on us for saying something like, "this shit happens".
DeleteThe point is he didn't have a gun, TS. Was the home owner's life really in jeopardy? Or did he kill the kid over the principle of the thing and then all you fanatics come to his aid with the super intelligent justification that "if you don't want to get shot don't break into someone's home."
DeleteThat bullshit justification takes the responsibility off the shooter where it belongs. If you pull the trigger on someone, you have to be justified. You can't turn it around and blame the one you shot. Either it was a good shoot or it wasn't.
But blaming the one who was shot is exactly part of the justification. If the thug didn't break the law and pose a threat to the good citizen, he wouldn't have been shot.
DeleteYou know what I went to school with this kid. He was one of those obnoxious loud kids that loved his friends and playing sports. It's sad that he had to bother with things that he wasn't old enough to indulge in but he was no 'thug'. He was a teenage boy doing stupid things. He was sneaking back into what he thought was his house. If the man who shot him was really innocent why don't they list his name? Why must they hid him from the public? Who shoots someone several times in self-defense?
DeleteLook passed the tongue-in-cheek, there's a real message here. Mike, you said "drunk kids do stupid shit like this all the time. So would theses kind of restrictions on the law-abiding reduce the occurrences of stupid drunk kids getting killed? Would it work?
ReplyDeleteWhat kinds of restrictions. We're talking about home owners shooting intruders too quickly without determining if there's a lethal threat.
DeleteI'm talking about the same type of restrictions you want for guns, except for alcohol. Like criminalizing private transfers with a narrow list of exemptions. Would that result in fewer drunk kids doing stupid stuff that gets them killed- not just breaking into someone's house, but climbing power lines, etc.?
Delete"What's your opinion?"
ReplyDeleteThat you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about!
I imagine if Mikeb's fire/smoke alarm went off in the middle of the night, he'd just kinda keep laying in bed to wait and see if it was spreading toward him. When he saw flames outside the door and was choking from the smoke he might then decide to call the fire dept and patiently wait for them to rescue him. He certainly wouldn't want to take any type of action to protect or defend himself and his property. That's what the fire dept. does.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers