Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Squirrel
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:53 pm
Location: West Carrollton, Ohio

Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by Squirrel »

Not sure if this goes here:
My wife was telling me last night that one of her friends had a neighbor draw and point a firearm at a child in his yard. The story was that her son an another boy were playing soccer in the back yard. The ball went over the fence into the neighbors yard. Her son called next door and asked their son if he was allowed to go through the gate to get the ball. He sent his buddy to get it instead of going himself. The neighbor comes out and points a gun at the kid and said "what are you doing in my yard"? I don't know if it makes a difference but the boy was black in an all white neighborhood. The mother wasn't sure whether or not she should call the police because it was the man's yard. I don't think that he was legal to draw on the kid for getting a ball. Should she have called the police? I think I would have. I am still under the impression that we are not allowed to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect property in Ohio.
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by willbird »

It will end up coming down to "he said he said".

Going after a soccer ball could be totally harmless, but making the ball go there on purpose as an excuse to enter the neighbors yard is entirely possible too.

Trespass on private property outdoors is not a valid reason to use deadly force in Ohio IMHO. But seeing a person you do not know advancing towards you on public or private property COULD give a person reason to fear death or great bodily harm.

Might be a good idea to get to know the neighbors even if they do not want to know you or be sociable, at least you know who they are ;-).

Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

willbird wrote:Trespass on private property outdoors is not a valid reason to use deadly force in Ohio IMHO. But seeing a person you do not know advancing towards you on public or private property COULD give a person reason to fear death or great bodily harm.
In order to be lawful a person's fear has to be reasonable. Just seeing a person you don't know walking towards you (absent any other facts) is not a reasonable belief that you need to act to defend yourself against a deadly threat. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been exposed to too much paranoia inducing material and ought to read less of whatever blogs/boards/etc. they're reading.
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by WestonDon »

Squirrel wrote:Not sure if this goes here:
My wife was telling me last night that one of her friends had a neighbor draw and point a firearm at a child in his yard. The story was that her son an another boy were playing soccer in the back yard. The ball went over the fence into the neighbors yard. Her son called next door and asked their son if he was allowed to go through the gate to get the ball. He sent his buddy to get it instead of going himself. The neighbor comes out and points a gun at the kid and said "what are you doing in my yard"? I don't know if it makes a difference but the boy was black in an all white neighborhood. The mother wasn't sure whether or not she should call the police because it was the man's yard. I don't think that he was legal to draw on the kid for getting a ball. Should she have called the police? I think I would have. I am still under the impression that we are not allowed to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect property in Ohio.
You don't say whether this story originates with your wife's friends neighbor or the neighbor's son but either way it appears you are getting this story at least third hand so I'd take that into account.

Be that as it may, assuming the story is accurate, I'd say that by coming out of his house to interrogate the kid at gunpoint pretty much disproves any claim of fearing for his life/safety. Yeah, I'd have called the police. Whether they do anything or not she needs to start the paper trail.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by WhyNot »

The mother wasn't sure whether or not she should call the police because it was the man's yard.
Did I read this correctly? What is this, a potential CNNz headline for ''attack of the assault soccer ball'' ?

Let's pretend the kid was climbing his trees, or TV aerial.
Spraying cats with water hose.
Pretend better yet, was soaping dude's car windows.

Still yet, nothing to give rise to , presenting a firearm little alone, POINTING it.


This is a discussion?

Someone points a firearm at MY kid , oh yes, I can guarantee the police will be called.
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by willbird »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
willbird wrote:Trespass on private property outdoors is not a valid reason to use deadly force in Ohio IMHO. But seeing a person you do not know advancing towards you on public or private property COULD give a person reason to fear death or great bodily harm.
In order to be lawful a person's fear has to be reasonable. Just seeing a person you don't know walking towards you (absent any other facts) is not a reasonable belief that you need to act to defend yourself against a deadly threat. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been exposed to too much paranoia inducing material and ought to read less of whatever blogs/boards/etc. they're reading.
Whether or not being approached is a threat or not is highly situational.

And whether or not the person who felt threatened has a duty to retreat depends on their physical ability or potential disability.

Agreed trespass outdoors is not valid reason to use deadly force in Ohio (not today anyway). I stole this from another website but it pretty much sums it up.
In general, Ohio law allows people to use deadly force against another person if they have a reasonable belief, even if mistaken, that the person poses an imminent “danger of death or great bodily harm,” and the people can’t exercise their “duty to retreat” or escape from the situation.
A Prosecutor and a Jury will make the decisions about all of that. And he said she said that a guy pointed a gun at a kid (according to the kid) means somebody will have to sort out who is telling the truth about what.

As far as your opinion in bold, well your welcome to it.....good thing they just do not let one random person make important legal rulings based on what was posted on an internet forum ;-). This whole thread is based on conjecture...but one sure thing seems to be that the person in question WAS trespassing, and human nature shows us that people often try to slant things in a way that makes them look better.



Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Thank you for making my point. :lol:

Seriously, this is an example of reading good material and focusing on what you want (the 'possibly' and 'potentially' scenarios) and ignoring the important words that limit what you want: the word 'reasonable' in "reasonable belief". But hey, if you think you can point a gun at a minor who trespasses in your yard to get their soccer ball and when their mom calls the cops the cop is gonna be all "yeah it's cool you were just protecting yourself" well hey nothing anyone's going to say is going to change your mind.
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by willbird »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:Thank you for making my point. :lol:

Seriously, this is an example of reading good material and focusing on what you want (the 'possibly' and 'potentially' scenarios) and ignoring the important words that limit what you want: the word 'reasonable' in "reasonable belief". But hey, if you think you can point a gun at a minor who trespasses in your yard to get their soccer ball and when their mom calls the cops the cop is gonna be all "yeah it's cool you were just protecting yourself" well hey nothing anyone's going to say is going to change your mind.
Your running with the ball IMHO.

Nowhere did I say it was OK to put a kid going after a ball at gunpoint for the act of trespass. I merely pointed out we literally have a "he said she said her kid said" story.

The first story out about Micheal Brown being shot to death by a Police officer was ..
Proponents of prosecuting Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department over his shooting of Brown have claimed that Wilson shot Brown while he was running away, his hands up.
Ok so take the ball and run as you have....of course it was murder, no way is that ok for that to happen.

But then after a lot of investigation more facts emerge, he ATTACKED the Officer and tried to take his gun away from him, etc, etc, etc. The "hands up don't shoot part never happened according to many witness under oath, and physical evidence.
No Hands Up. All gunshot wounds were from the front – there were no gunshot entrance wounds from behind. Most importantly, the gunshot wound to the upper ventral right arm is described this way:

The path of this shot is slightly upward, backward and leftward. The track of this bullet has been traced to pass via the skin, soft tissue to exit the skin of the upper dorsal right arm.

In other words, the hands could not have been up at the time of this shot. As the Post-Dispatch points out, quoting Melinek, the shot “traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said….That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.”
So when you hear a story from a friend whose friend told them that her kid said xyz happened, which would be the better course of action, find out what REALLY happened then judge, or use third hand information and judge right off the bat based on conjecture ??

The Homeowner was in his own yard on his own property....why is he automatically thrown to the wolves based on third hand information. Did the homeowner actually do what was said, what happened in the moments leading up to it, not what we heard third hand, what ACTUALLY happened ?

For SURE take a detailed report from the person who claims they had a gun pointed at them, for sure interview the home owner, THEN reveal any video evidence, and if false statements were made take legal actions against whoever did that, and or prosecute any other criminal actions.

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are another example where the case was tried based on rumors and conjecture and lots of people made up their mind before any physical evidence or witness testimony took place, some of those folks still insist Zimmeran hunted and killed a small teenage boy because of his race.

Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by willbird »

Bottom line the accuser was committing a criminal act, agreed a minor one that is not handled by the threat of deadly force, IF what he said she said the kid said is the complete truth and nothing but the truth.

Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by schmieg »

willbird wrote:Bottom line the accuser was committing a criminal act, agreed a minor one that is not handled by the threat of deadly force, IF what he said she said the kid said is the complete truth and nothing but the truth.

Bill
That's a big "if" and I'm glad you capitalized it. Quite a few years ago, I defended a man accused of pointing a gun at a bunch of kids who were playing football in the lot across from his house because they had roughed his son up. He denied it and said that he didn't even own a gun because when he was in his teens, he shot his toes off with a shotgun and he was scared to death of guns. He had been installing a CB antenna on his truck at the time he saw the kids roughing up his kid who had a heart defect. The prosecutor was fired up and at the preliminary hearing, he made a dramatic statement and then said he would call the kids to testify. I moved for a separation of witnesses which was granted. The kids all said on direct that he pulled a gun and threatened to shoot them. However, on cross, the kids' testimony started to contradict each other. Some said he had a rifle. Some said he had a handgun. One said he fired a shot into the air. The others said he did not fire. They all said that, after it happened, they continued to play football in the lot for at least another half hour before going home and telling their parents.

At the close of the prosecutor's case, I moved for a dismissal of the charges and the judge granted it. I asked the prosecutor if he were going to take this to a direct indictment and he said no, there was no point after the record of the cross examination.

Bottom line is that kids sometimes make things up to be dramatic. This guy may well be guilty, but don't start building the gallows yet.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Hey if you want to turn this thread into a bunch of theoreticals on different possibilities that's something else entirely. OP's question was
The mother wasn't sure whether or not she should call the police because it was the man's yard. I don't think that he was legal to draw on the kid for getting a ball. Should she have called the police? I think I would have. I am still under the impression that we are not allowed to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect property in Ohio.
Given what was said and responding to OP's question, yes she should have called the police. Nothing given would suggest the neighbor's actions were remotely legally justified.

You're the one who went off inventing other details to try to justify pulling a gun in the neighbor's circumstance. Now you're derailing into discussions about Trayvon and Micheal Brown??
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by schmieg »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:Hey if you want to turn this thread into a bunch of theoreticals on different possibilities that's something else entirely. OP's question was
The mother wasn't sure whether or not she should call the police because it was the man's yard. I don't think that he was legal to draw on the kid for getting a ball. Should she have called the police? I think I would have. I am still under the impression that we are not allowed to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect property in Ohio.
Given what was said and responding to OP's question, yes she should have called the police. Nothing given would suggest the neighbor's actions were remotely legally justified.

You're the one who went off inventing other details to try to justify pulling a gun in the neighbor's circumstance. Now you're derailing into discussions about Trayvon and Micheal Brown??
Yes, she should have called the police and an investigation should have occurred. If the police properly interviewed the kid and his story seems solid, they should have charged him. But that isn't the end of it and we should not convict him here prematurely.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 7481
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by Javelin Man »

schmieg wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Hey if you want to turn this thread into a bunch of theoreticals on different possibilities that's something else entirely. OP's question was
The mother wasn't sure whether or not she should call the police because it was the man's yard. I don't think that he was legal to draw on the kid for getting a ball. Should she have called the police? I think I would have. I am still under the impression that we are not allowed to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect property in Ohio.
Given what was said and responding to OP's question, yes she should have called the police. Nothing given would suggest the neighbor's actions were remotely legally justified.

You're the one who went off inventing other details to try to justify pulling a gun in the neighbor's circumstance. Now you're derailing into discussions about Trayvon and Micheal Brown??
Yes, she should have called the police and an investigation should have occurred. If the police properly interviewed the kid and his story seems solid, they should have charged him. But that isn't the end of it and we should not convict him here prematurely.
Who is convicting him prematurely? We've already put him in the electric chair and thrown the switch! Now we can have the trial and possible appeal. :wink:
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Nobody's convicted anybody. The question was whether the police should have been called. The first response was IMO decidedly unhelpful and misleading. Now we've seemingly agreed that yes in the situation as described (understanding that we're not getting it all first hand) the police should have been called. Easy peasey although it really shouldn't have taken this long.
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Neighbor draws on kid getting ball

Post by schmieg »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:Nobody's convicted anybody. The question was whether the police should have been called. The first response was IMO decidedly unhelpful and misleading. Now we've seemingly agreed that yes in the situation as described (understanding that we're not getting it all first hand) the police should have been called. Easy peasey although it really shouldn't have taken this long.
When you become a moderator, you can limit thread discussion to one question, one answer. While there has been a bit of thread drift here, the discussion is still pertinent to the original posting which did contain the implied question as to whether the alleged actions of the homeowner were lawful.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Post Reply