Father shoots 17 year old daughters BF in her bed. She told dad she didn't know him.

[GeauxLSU]

Intent isn't necessary for a crime to have been committed. Plus, as I already mentioned, I don't think you can go after a 16 year old in civil court.

I get intent isn't necessary but I can't imagine a DA charging her without it. Don't know. Minors don't get free reign from damages caused by their actions though.

 

[Bulldawg165]

Additional/different details.... http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/03...-daughters-room-daughter-confesses-invited-2/

The article states that an argument ensued, but I'm a bit inclined to think the writer is biased considering how he refers to the kid as an "intruder." The boy was legally allowed to be there because he was invited in by an occupant of the home. He was NOT trespassing in a legal sense. It's funny how all of the defenders are getting onto the boy for sneaking in and not the girl for sneaking him in. Every argument for "well don't let your sons sneak into girls houses" could be countered with "don't let your daughters act like floozies and sneak boys in"

 

[GeauxLSU]

The article states that an argument ensued, but I'm a bit inclined to think the writer is biased considering how he refers to the kid as an "intruder." The boy was legally allowed to be there because he was invited in by an occupant of the home. He was NOT trespassing in a legal sense. It's funny how all of the defenders are getting onto the boy for sneaking in and not the girl for sneaking him in. Every argument for "well don't let your sons sneak into girls houses" could be countered with "don't let your daughters act like floozies and sneak boys in"

I haven't sensed that at all. Had he not been there, he'd be alive. Stupid move on his part, stupid move on her part. The old "takes two to tango" is very appropriate.

 

[Bulldawg165]

I haven't sensed that at all. Had he not been there, he'd be alive. Stupid move on his part, stupid move on her part. The old "takes two to tango" is very appropriate.

True, but irrelevant. He was legally allowed to be there because he was invited there by a legal occupant of the home.

 

[woodstock]

tough to live with that aftermath, for everyone involved

 

[Ken Ford]

There is more going on in this instance than an "intruder" and all the big talk is BS. I've had people burst into my apartment door (many years ago) but I assessed the situation and determined that they were drunks fighting in the first instance and a neighbor, again drunk in the second. They weren't threatening me, I was holding an AK47 in my hands when the fighting drunks busted my door in, but I didn't go FULL RETARD and start blasting, that's stupid. I told them to get the F*** OUT now and they did, right after they pissed their pants. If they'd started towards me, THEN I'd start blasting. The neighbor I took home and sat him on his couch. I didn't have to get arrested, go to court, spend a fortune defending myself just because I wanted to "defend the perimeter" going full retard Rambo and killing everything in sight. I used some judgement and assessed the situations BEFORE I even considered shooting. I'm glad I did.

And if they had reached for "something"?Guess you would have waited to see what they had... And it would have been too late. Too much restraint can get you killed.

 

[Ken Ford]

The article states that an argument ensued, but I'm a bit inclined to think the writer is biased considering how he refers to the kid as an "intruder." The boy was legally allowed to be there because he was invited in by an occupant of the home. He was NOT trespassing in a legal sense. It's funny how all of the defenders are getting onto the boy for sneaking in and not the girl for sneaking him in. Every argument for "well don't let your sons sneak into girls houses" could be countered with "don't let your daughters act like floozies and sneak boys in"

Wrong again. A minor does not have the right to choose who enters, the owner sets the limits of who the minor is legaly allowed to give access

 

[Bulldawg165]

Wrong again. A minor does not have the right to choose who enters, the owner sets the limits of who the minor is legaly allowed to give access

so who broke the law, the boy or the girl? You and I both know that you couldn't arrest the boy for his actions that night if he abided by the orders of the father after getting found

 

[Ken Ford]

True, but irrelevant. He was legally allowed to be there because he was invited there by a legal occupant of the home.

Negative. And there is several case laws supporting this.Cops cannot gain entry on the word of a minor either.The case as stated in the OP is completely legal, probably in any state in the union.

 

[ocean_glocker]

Updated today:
"So far no arrests have been made."