• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      Yes, but that’s not Le Epic Chad Uber Cool. You don’t get to experience glee at the thought of being this person.

      Why would I want to read something that makes me feel bad? Good Feels Only.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    I mean good but is no one worried about the kid not having any issues with taking someone’s life? Maybe I’m missing out on some extra pieces of info, but it is a bit concerning even if it is an intruder.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      He didn’t actually kill the intruder so that’s something he can probably look forward to either after joining the military or law enforcement.

      But joking aside, children by in large, don’t seem to have much empathy about such things. You can see this in the bullying they do in schools and on the playgrounds. And it doesn’t seem to bother them much.

  • Zacryon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    Imagine living in a society so deeply fucked up that some people feel the need to become burglars and others feel the need that attacking them with deadly weapons them is the only option.

    And then imagine that this is celebrated.

    Oh well…

    • Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      Sounds pretty legit to me. It’s fucked people need to rob but you come to take someone’s things and you’re naive if you don’t think violence is a potential outcome.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        It’s not the taking the things that’s the issue, it’s that the method of taking the things inherently comes with the either implicit or explicit threat of bodily harm or violence in order for the criminal to get what he wants. Nobody’s going to break into your house for your stuff, or leap out of a dark alley and demand your wallet, and when you tell them “no” just shrug and walk away. They’re going to shove a gun in your face or try to beat you up.

        If you show up with the intent of employing force, you absolutely should not be surprised if people employ force against you in turn.

        That, and if you want to stick it to The Man there are much more suitable targets than victimizing individual people who just as likely have it as tough as you do. Go knock over a Walmart or something. For fuck’s sake.

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        and you’re naive if you don’t think violence is a potential outcome

        Currently, of course. Point is, people can be better. On both sides. And instead of nurturing our compassion and collective support, we praise violence and let continue the wheel to roll which has already destroyed countless of lives.

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      Na, fuck that, This guy might be a saint with the most tragic relatable backstory imaginable but the last thing this kid should do is hesitate long enough to hear that story or believe it, also a kid just can’t fight back even if he could he shouldn’t take the chances, as far as him saying he cried like a baby, 🤷 you broke into my house dude you aren’t gonna be praised. This kid has every right to be proud, in this situation we are nothing but animals and he did exactly the right thing.

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        you broke into my house dude you aren’t gonna be praised

        Of course not.

        This kid has every right to be proud, in this situation we are nothing but animals and he did exactly the right thing.

        So is it right to put deadly weapons into the hands of children?
        What if he had killed the burglar? Good thing to have on the conscience of a child, right?

        Don’t get me wrong. I totally understand that in extreme situations people should defend themselves. But was this an extreme situation which justifies these actions?

        What the child said is already deeply disturbing:

        “I told him I was going to kill him if he didn’t get out of my house,” said Chris.

        And why the fuck do children have access to weapons?

        he grabbed a 9mm handgun

        Then there is this:

        The intruder made it out the front door, but that’s when Chris started firing off bullets. As the intruder was about to jump a fence, Chris’s 12th and final shot hit the bad guy in the leg.

        ( Citations from: https://www.wptv.com/news/national/chris-gaither-11-year-old-boy-shoots-intruder-who-cried-like-a-baby )

        Intruder was outside, going away, and the kid started shooting.
        The kid could’ve just ran away. Instead of trying to kill someone or getting themselves killed by such a behaviour.

        No. The kid shouldn’t be proud. Neither should anyone. That’s just fucked up. And raising kids to become possibly killers is not making it better overall.
        He can be lucky not to have killed that man and that he (the kid) didn’t get seriously injured.

        People can and should be better than this.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          Anytime someone forces their way into your home it’s an extreme situation. The kid shouldn’t have followed him past the threshold but beyond that whatever means necessary to protect himself is justified. No one should be worrying about the safety of their attacker when they are defending themselves. The invader could have ensured his own safety by simply not doing that.

          • Zacryon@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            but beyond that whatever means necessary to protect himself is justified. No one should be worrying about the safety of their attacker when they are defending themselves

            Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?

            I don’t share your view. You don’t need to kill someone in order to stop some form of crime. Especially not if there is no or a low risk of bodily harm.

            Self defence only goes so far as to inrerrupt and disable an attack. The mildest means possible are the preferrable ones. For example, if some wants to beat you up, you don’t go on and kill them after you’ve defeated them and they’re unconscious on the ground.
            In this case, the best the kid could’ve done is to just run away and call for help. It would’ve been safer for himself and prevented that he possibly might have become a murderer.

            Self defence has limits. And for good reason. You can’t just do anything you want, just because someone attacks you. You do what is necessary and possible for you. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise you yourself become a culprit.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days ago

              Are burglars usually murderers? Don’t they usually care about stealing stuff to make some form of profit out of that?

              Sometimes they are. Sometimes they’re rapists. There are some sick motherfuckers in this world. When I was a kid a woman just down the street was raped in front of her kids by three home invaders. You can’t know the intention of the person breaking into your home. The safest bet for yourself is to assume the worst. There’s no way to know their intentions until they act and by then it may be too late. Especially if you’re not trained in “the mildest means possible” or are smaller and weaker than the intruder. You don’t owe these people anything. They put you in this situation. If they invent a gun with a stun setting like in Star Wars by all means use that. Until then lethal force is the most expedient way to disable an attacker. You don’t execute them if it renders them no longer a threat but if they die that outcome is acceptable.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        I don’t understand how this comment has been upvoted, especially as a response to another comment that boils down to “it sucks that people are driven to burglary and it sucks that people have to defend themselves with deadly force from burglary”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      It’s just text on a screen. No idea of the details or even if it’s fabricated from whole cloth.

      The only thing that’s important is the image of blood and terror and pain being worshipped by people who secretly yearn for the chance to inflict it on others.

  • disgrunty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    So many dumbasses who think Professor Barclay is being serious. It’s a joke. The guy did not die. It’s dark humor.

  • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    I understand that it’s self defense, but does it feel weird to anyone else how comfortable a kid is with killing another person?? He doesn’t seem to have much remorse.

    • Classy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Is it not possible that this photo was taken prior to the incident, and that the kid was bothered by the whole situation? I have a hard time taking the “little baby” comment too seriously. People act in very unusual ways when overdosing on adrenaline.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      I got no proof other than my personal experiences growing up and observing kids while teaching them in groups at a school.

      Children by in large seem to have little empathy for others. Children have little to no problem with bullying others without any emotional issues. Even to the point of pushing other kids to suicide. They have little regard for others and even less control over maturity.

      I think empathy is something that you develop as you grow older. It’s more a mark of adulthood than childhood.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Sadly, this is very similar of my wife’s understanding of teaching kids from 11-18. Emotional intelligence is very different from standard intelligence, and it develops at different times for different people.

        Sometimes it’s a pure lack of empathy, and other times it’s simply not being able to understand that people have their own shit they’re dealing with. It can be simple stuff like bullying someone going through a rough time at home/school, or showing zero remorse when a kid they’ve assaulted goes blind due to brain damage because “the kid was a fucking dweeb”. Some of the stories I’ve heard second-hand are absolutely fucking tragic, even in good schools.

      • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I don’t know about that. I think a lot of kids feel empathy from a young age, and bullying behaviors are rather caused by a harsh environment and how they are treated by other people, especially parents.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          I’m not so sure. Children have a lot of desire and drive to monopolize an adult’s attention and resources. This I think gives any one child a leg up on getting the best resources to survive better. And you can see it when you work with a group of children. They will group around you jostling for the best position to be first and get the best from you. They do of course, get better with age and as they learn patience, but there is still a lack of empathy to be found in their base behavior.

          After all, if you grew up with siblings, I’m quite sure your parents at some point in your early childhood told you “Be nice to your siblings! You love them!” more than once. Or some variation on that theme. And if you are a parent yourself, you have used that phrase at some point also. Because who has better reason to want to “kill” each other than brothers and sisters? They want to get as much of mommy and daddy as possible. Those resources are scarce and your natural drive is to fight to get them.

          And hopefully, as children age they learn to get and show empathy to those around them. Most do, but some never quite manage it.

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Based kid murdering an attacker

    Lol at Lemmy crying like babies because the kid defended himself LMAO 🤣

    And then you want to toot your own horn by owning guns to threaten republicans kjjjj

    I’d say you guys are disconnected with reality but these comments just make you all look unhinged

  • jdnewmil@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    Isn’t this basically the plot of “Home Alone” and it’s very popular sequels playing out with a firearm? With FPS games as the cultural backdrop, why is anyone shocked at this? Or is this just hand-wringing?

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        being poor has nothing to do with breaking into another persons house.

        just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

        IMO stealing is an acceptable method of survival but stealing from an individual is wrong, while stealing from corporations is fine because they steal from individuals on an hourly basis.

          • Meursault@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            What exactly are you implying? That poor people must break into other people’s houses to escape poverty? Or that being poor just naturally gives one a predilection to break into the houses of others? Because the former is shitty, irresponsible advice that will get people maimed and/or killed, and the latter is insulting to the dignity of the less fortunate.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        I’m a gun owner, and I have absolutely no interest in shooting someone ever.

        You know how people who say people should eat less meat get a lot of flack because of those annoying vegans who spray-paint leather jackets?

        That’s most gun owners. Perfectly reasonable people who have no interest in violence, take gun safety seriously, and store their guns safely.

        The thing is part of responsible gun ownership is not wearing a shirt that says “fuck you, I have a gun.” We don’t make guns our entire personality, and we understanding that advertising our gun ownership will make people think we’re like the redneck jackasses you see on TV AND make it more likely to have our cars and homes broken into.

        The number one way to get your car windows smashed and everything in it cleaned out is to put a Glock sticker on the window.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          Nah, sorry mate. I’d say your stats are wrong. I think the majority of gun owners in US are hateful idiots that would love to shoot someone - preferably a Mexican. There’s no great way to prove this, but it would be foolish to give Americans any benefit of the doubt that leans toward responsibility when stupidity clearly prevails. You might not be a shithead, and perhaps all gun owners are not, but I think the majority of gun owners are. Your Vegan analogy will hold water when the Vegans overwhelming vote for a convicted criminal nitwit platforming on hate and vengeance.

          • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            I’m a pro 2A Mexican American. My great grandparents provided shelter for Japanese Americans and their property in the early 1940s. We’re very aware of what America and people in general are capable of, and would never give up our firearms (unless the world was magically dearmed).

            The left is pro 2A. Liberals are too busy ignoring reality and driving the bus into a lake because gps told them to.

            I get you come from a different place, but your thinking is very self centric. We’re on the brink of a third world war, you might consider arming yourself with more than a biscuit, NATO might not be around much longer.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            There are around 400 million civilian-owned guns in the US. That’s almost half the entire world’s civilian-owned firearms. The US doesn’t have anywhere close to half the world’s homicides.

            With the recent uptick in gun gomocide rates, we reached nearly 20,000 in 2022. That’s obviously very high. But if if we had 20 years straight of those horrifying death numbers, the odds of any specific gun being used in a homicide would still be less than 1/1000.

            We have a violence issue in the US, no question, but if 0.01% of guns were used in homicide annually, the murder rate would be doubled. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners aren’t what you say they are.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        No offense. Who cares. If someone is an asshole enough to break into someone’s house then they better be ready.

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          Do you really think breaking and entering deserves a death sentence? I’m not condoning it by any means, but equally death seems like a disproportionate response, not to mention the long term effects this is bound to have on the child.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            The state shouldn’t be executing people for it but a regular person defending themselves is a different scenario. Police (allegedly) are trained in safely restraining criminals and taking them into custody. A regular citizen defending themselves is not. The safest thing for them is whatever takes their attacker down the quickest. Unfortunately that is generally going to be lethal force.

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 days ago

                I didn’t say they deserved death. I said you shouldn’t be worrying about the outcome (which is a decent probability of their death) while defending yourself. No one should be expected to hold back when their own safety is on the line. They didn’t put themselves in that situation. It’s entirely on the offender. If you manage to restrain/run them off without killing them, great but don’t risk your own life to do so.

                • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  I’m not really sure if you read my original post or not, it doesn’t have anything at all to do with what someone should or shouldn’t do when someone invades their home. It’s entirely to do with the “he had it coming”/“he deserved it” attitude a lot of responses seem to have.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.

            Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.

            Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.

            I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.

            • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 days ago

              You appear to have completely missed the point of my post and focussed on a side point. There’s a world of difference in defending yourself and thinking someone deserves death for entertaining a house.

              To your other points, first off I haven’t said anything about the rights or wrongs of the child defending themselves, I’m not sure why you’re making the argument about that. I do however disagree there’s a basic assumption that anyone entering a house uninvited has no regard for the health and wellbeing of inhabitants. The rest of the post just looks like leap after leap from that point forward.

                • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Well, no, you’ve gone from “threat” to “threat to life” that’s a leap. I’m not sure where it disagrees with my original premise, I’m not sure it has anything to do with my original premise.

          • veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            I don’t have the facts of the case, but it’s not like the defenders have the luxury of knowing the intruders intentions and how they will behave, but considering they are already doing something severely illegal, it’s not much of a stretch to think the intruder would be willing to put their life at risk, and in that context, it is absolutely justifiable to kill in defense.

            • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              Nobody breaking into inhabited houses is going to show up holding a feather duster.

              If an intruder knows he is intruding and he doesn’t leg it as soon as he realizes someone is in the house, it is a very reasonable assumption to make that he has also got some kind of weapon.

          • GladiusB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            Fuck that. Break in my house and watch what happens. It’s not up for grabs. People that steal from other people are pieces of garbage. Steal from corporations.