Didn't want to outright ask, as it's none of my business, but I suspected as much. My parents weren't protective, at all, in fact they weren't around very much, and I practically raised my youngest sister. If I had found a boy in her room she claimed not to know, that would have been my reaction as well; that he was…

Can't remember which state, but it was involving C&C permits as well.

Because she had him hiding under the bed?!? If he were allowed to be there, why would she have hid him under the damned bed?

Kid would still be alive if he hadn't been sneaking around in a girls bedroom where he knew he shouldn't be. He would also be alive if the girl hadn't lied. The gun didn't create the situation, it ended it. Had it actually been an intruder the dad would be a hero.

How do you know what he aimed for? Were you there? if he was heeling it or his sights were off it could have easily hit higher. The teen could also have been moving DOWN as the shot was fired, if he were reaching for something on the ground. It wasn't necessarily a stationary target, nor an especially accurate…

Wonder if you can lower it to like 90% by cutting off the penis entirely

no, the problem was falsely accusing someone of being an intruder, and then not complying with someone who thinks you are an intruder. If it had actually been an intruder, the gun could have saved his life. If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear by waiting for the cops to show up, there is no reason to be…

I would agree, but that's where the control, in control comes into play. If we could rely on gun owners to be trained perfectly, it'd be less of an issue.

The scene was likely preserved well, the cops were already on their way, and you can see that his hand was bagged to preserve GSR. Even so, Texas. Kid was an intruder, I'm not 100% certain, but I'm not sure if he needed to see a deadly weapon (legally speaking).

It matters because it exposes the fathers character. If she wasn't scared of him enough to sneak out, it suggests that the father may be more rational. If your scenario is true and the father is controlling or abusive, it wouldn't make sense that she'd risk getting caught with someone there, especially if she was…

BINGO! That was my theory, even if he was naked, he may have been reaching for his clothes (which could have contained a weapon in the fathers eyes). There's a lot we don't know about the events, so it's hard to speculate, but I can't see the father legally responsible. He's already got to live with this the rest…

Perhaps, but what if the boy was naked in mid thrust? We don't know many of the details. He may have been reaching towards a weapon under clothes on the bedside table in the fathers mind.

Yes, but the media would have us believe they are. He didn't shoot him because he may have been armed, he shot him because he believed he WAS armed, and reaching for a weapon. He (over)reacted in a self defense situation, and since the boy was arguing, it increased tension further.

Yes, but you also know that they learn best when they're young, not when they're old. They need to be taught these things while they're unlikely to make the proper decisions, because as adults we can reason things out better.

Yes, he was arguing, but it doesn't matter who is actually right or wrong when a gun is involved. The person with the gun is ALWAYS RIGHT. He was on the phone with 911, just fucking wait for the cops to show it. It is not worth risking your life arguing with someone pointing a gun at you, you don't know how scared…

of course not, but it's pretty fucking stupid not to follow the instructions of someone holding a gun on you when they've caught you somewhere you know you're not supposed to be

LOL you actually are getting into the line I stopped typing above. In some ways, yes, he got himself into that situation by disrespecting the sanctity of anothers home. There's always something to blame depending how far you take it. No, it's not reasonable at first to expect someone to be shot over a lie, but,…

It's rarely enforced, but by deliberately shooting to wound would be a hit not in the center mass, like shooting someone in the foot or leg. Deliberately aiming for a limb puts others at risk, because it's a lot easier to miss a leg than a torso. That's the primary reason, but it also brings up the question "if you…

He definitely shot to kill, as he was hopefully trained to do. At first glance, yeah, most would see that as questionable, but, depending on his training, permits, and local laws, he may have been required to do so. In some places it's illegal to shoot to wound, for various reasons.

No, but we don't know there was any abuse to begin with. If there was, I don't see why she'd risk the wrath.