well, ideally any gun owner either has a light rail or at least a surefire to ID the target and threat level.

you never fire at anything you haven't ID'd, and you always should know what is directly behind the target.

this guy obviously didn't...unless he's just hip to knowingly shoot unarmed kids.

to quote my main nig, Col Cooper:

1. All guns are always loaded. NO exceptions! Never treat a firearm as if it is empty and "safe."

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

I can't believe that a rational man followed rule 4 and decided it was a good idea to go ahead with the shot. He obviously didn't ID the threat well enough.

This is all conjecture of course, for if the kid was beligerant, angry, or came at him, all bets are off. I'm just going off the articles. I think if the kid was fighting him he would have reported that.

a couple of different things...what is the race of the guy that shot him?
is there a way to determine if the warning shot was fired after the fatal shot?

What if the kid were bigger than you? Obviously, this guy would have to be pretty damn small after seeing the pic of the kid, but it's always a possibility. The equalizer was his gun. If you let the guy come too close to you, maybe he overpowers you, takes it, and uses it on you and your family.

Just something to consider.

I also stand by my previous comment that it's possible the warning shot wasn't fired until after the kill shot, which would explain why the kid didn't leave if he was just drunk.

that shot sure does get people's attention. I've never seen anyone ignore a shot over the bow.

I don't see a way of telling, especially if they were fired in close at about the same time. Maybe if neighbors heard a gunshot then another 3-5 mins later, it might look suspicious. Might be able to look at the trajectory of the bullet into the ceiling vs. bullet into kid to see if they line up into an acceptable place of origin. But like has been said, it doesn't matter. The warning shot wasn't necessary, so it won't be checked into.

what if, just for argument's sake, this man has lived in tech terrace for a while, and like many other families in the tech terrace area, he is very angry at the amount of partying that goes on in the area and he has the "stupid college kids" attitude.
well the guy stumbles into his house by accident and the man shoots him immediately after seeing that he has the "college kid" look and seeing that he's drunk/dissoriented. then fires the warning shot for cover up.
legal within the law, but still...

I would never rule anything like that out.

Doesn't matter.

And you sound like Lance

but this isn't the military. this is a private home. you know whether or not someone is supposed to be in your own house, and if you give someone verbal warning and still don't leave, it shouldn't matter if you can identify them. a real intruder would not follow your colonel's rule #4. many people would be too scared to flip on all the lights or put a flashlight on their gun (which immediately gives away their location to the intruder). and like I said, if this situation were repeated 100 times, how many of those do you think is a lost drunk kid vs a drugged up, armed intruder?

man tech terrace is some ghetto ass shit. dumb college kids. i lived in south overton and never had a problem until some football players and hipster emo kids moved into the houses on my street

My thing is that at 3am with adrenaline pumping, decisions come in a hurry and usually are the wrong ones.

This is the same reason kids run from the cops after speeding at 3am...

These aren't military rules of gunplay. These are simply the rules.

You don't shoot at that which you haven't positively ID'd.

they're not military rules... just rules that your military commander gave you? the military is different and it should be. when you're dressed out in body armor and shooting at an enemy from behind cover and have the luxury of IDing the person you're firing at, that's one thing. when it's 3 AM and you've been startled awake by someone intruding into your home, then confront them when it's pitch black, that's something completely different.

I'm sorry man I simply don't agree. Even the law doesn't agree. I'm honestly surprised that you'd take this kind of position in a case like this. You and your family will die in that situation. I'll value my family's lives over the tiny possibility that the person is inside my house by accident at 3AM with no ill intentions.

first, he's not my personal commander (mine was anthony zinni). he was a retired colonel and the most respected gunslinger of the 20th century.

"the father of modern shooting" is the title he wore. you might find him interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_(colonel)

why are you suprised that I would want to ID the threat? If some dude came into my house at 3am, he's getting blinded by a surefire with a weapon drawn on him while I eyball him and his situation, at which point if I do not see a weapon drawn, he's getting a verbal warning "halt, who goes there, I am armed and at the ready, lay face down on the ground"...if he persists or does not retreat or surrender, he's getting a shot across the bow (floor), after that he's getting a .45 hollow point in his leg.

my hands are stained enough.

also I want to clarify I am not blaming the shooter. he was in his right to do what he did. I respect and defend that.

I am not arguing the man's right to defense.

I'm merely talking about why this shit didn't need to happen. but the blame lays on the intruder.