Father Accused of Shooting, Paralyzing Daughter's Boyfriend After Finding Him in Clos

[Abominable Gorilla]

I guess if you limit the situation to only the perspective of the teen, I agree. The teen should admit wrongdoing. He could have avoided the situation with his own behavior.

[Brian96]

I guess if you limit the situation to only the perspective of the teen, I agree. The teen should admit wrongdoing. He could have avoided the situation with his own behavior.

Which is what Sooner has been doing all along. The focus of the thread was on the crazy father, and he offered a minority report that the 19-year-old MAN in his daughter's bedroom had some responsibility for creating the situation in which the father overreacted. The daughter, or slut if you will, also had a large hand in creating the situation. The jury will almost certainly hold the father accountable for his role in the day's events; Sooner, in my view, is simply asking that we consider the roles others played as well.

[Dirtydawg]

Which is what Sooner has been doing all along. The focus of the thread was on the crazy father, and he offered a minority report that the 19-year-old MAN in his daughter's bedroom had some responsibility for creating the situation in which the father overreacted. The daughter, or slut if you will, also had a large hand in creating the situation. The jury will almost certainly hold the father accountable for his role in the day's events; Sooner, in my view, is simply asking that we consider the roles others played as well.

Unless someone's life was being threatened, I don't see where they need to admit they brought the situation on themselves. Were they wrong for having sex in the father's house? Of course. But not to the point of having someone try to kill them.

[Brian96]

Unless someone's life was being threatened, I don't see where they need to admit they brought the situation on themselves. Were they wrong for having sex in the father's house? Of course. But not to the point of having someone try to kill them.

Oh, come on now. The lesson here I think is best summed up, "You play with fire, you're going to get burnt." It sounds like you are saying that if the 19-year-old man calculated that his risk in flagrantly disobeying his girlfriend's parents wishes (or in another sense, a property owner's explicit command to stay off his property when he wasn't present) was that he would at worst get a butt-kicking, then he is absolved from responsibility for provoking the girl's father?

It reminds me of this scenario: Someone cuts you off in traffic, so you ride behind him, honking your horn, and bumping his rear end at every traffic light. After a mile or two he pulls a gun and shoots you in the head. The shooter is going to go to jail, but you were still a dumbass for provoking him.

Similarly, the father should go to jail for his hot-headed over-reaction. But the 19-year-old man who violated his command to stay off his property is a punk. But this punk bit off more than he could chew. He deliberately crossed the line (repeatedly, according to the second new story posted) and got himself in over his head when his girlfriend's father lost control.

[randerizer]

It reminds me of this scenario: Someone cuts you off in traffic, so you ride behind him, honking your horn, and bumping his rear end at every traffic light. After a mile or two he pulls a gun and shoots you in the head. The shooter is going to go to jail, but you were still a dumbass for provoking him.

I doubt the boy had an interest in bumping the father's rear.

[Dirtydawg]

Oh, come on now. The lesson here I think is best summed up, "You play with fire, you're going to get burnt." It sounds like you are saying that if the 19-year-old man calculated that his risk in flagrantly disobeying his girlfriend's parents wishes (or in another sense, a property owner's explicit command to stay off his property when he wasn't present) was that he would at worst get a butt-kicking, then he is absolved from responsibility for provoking the girl's father?

It reminds me of this scenario: Someone cuts you off in traffic, so you ride behind him, honking your horn, and bumping his rear end at every traffic light. After a mile or two he pulls a gun and shoots you in the head. The shooter is going to go to jail, but you were still a dumbass for provoking him.

Similarly, the father should go to jail for his hot-headed over-reaction. But the 19-year-old man who violated his command to stay off his property is a punk. But this punk bit off more than he could chew. He deliberately crossed the line (repeatedly, according to the second new story posted) and got himself in over his head when his girlfriend's father lost control.

Where's the second story?

[markay714]

I am making an assumption they were up to no good. If they weren't then this discussion would not be necessary.

Now, I want you to know that I don't care if they were having sex or not. I would be so angry at the boy and my daughter if I found a boy in their room, that I really don't know what my reaction would be. I've preached to my children, both boys and girls, that they never, under any circumstances are to have a person of the opposite sex in their room. Never, ever! Not even if we are home. I have also made it absolutely clear that the are never, ever to have a person of the opposite sex in our home if we are not home.

They know this rule is absolute, and that they will see the highest form of my anger if this rule is broken. There is no grey area here. Also, any time my daughter has a new date, that rule is spelled out to him in no uncertain terms. I also tell him that if I ever hear that he touches my daughter's private parts that I will not promise him that I can vouch for his safety.

I must disagree with you. If they were having sex in my house, the boy is a punk and my daughter would be a slut. That doesn't mean I wouldn't love her, and it doesn't mean I won't forgive her. It does mean there will be hell to pay.

I also want to reiterate that I know that the odds are against me here. However, I'm going to fight this with all I have, because I know that it is in my daughter's best interest to fight it. She is allowed a lot of rope in a lot of areas, but not in that one. She knows that the standard is "from the shoulders to just above the knees, nothing touched and nothing seen." She tests me on the "seen" part, especially above the knees, but I have no problem addressing those times when she pushes the limit. I don't want a Puritan, just modesty.

My children are allowed and encouraged to taste life. However, sex is a forbidden fruit. I know that fruit taste real good, and the temptation is overwhelming, but the fruit of waiting is far better.

Sooner, y'all hang in there and do everything you can to train your children in what is right. It does work. I've been called a Puritan before and I don't really mind (I'd rather that all over the place than the opposite). I was trained in my parents beliefs and along the way I adoped them 100%. I'm so glad that I don't have to feel guilty for being involved in things that I have/had no business doing. I don't have regrets in the area of sexual purity at all - it has everything to do w/ my parents' training up and until my values were formed.

There are plenty of lessons I've had to learn the hard way in life because of my hard head and I could've learned a lot by adopting my parent's views. Who knows why kids do or don't listen and on what? One thing is for sure - if you don't try, there are plenty of people that will be glad to persuade your family in other directions!

[Brian96]

Where's the second story?

Sooner posted the link in post #37.

[Dirtydawg]

Sooner posted the link in post #37.

Thanks. Found it and read it. Didn't see anywhere in that story where the father told the boy to stay off his property unless chaperoned or else he was going to shoot him. I think to say that the kid calculated the risk and acted anyway is ridiculous. Who calculates that someone is going to shoot them for sneaking to see his girlfriend? The worst he thought was a probable butt whipping, but I'm sure he figured the real risk was that he wouldn't be allowed to see the girl again not a bullet in the spine.

[Brian96]

Thanks. Found it and read it. Didn't see anywhere in that story where the father told the boy to stay off his property unless chaperoned or else he was going to shoot him. I think to say that the kid calculated the risk and acted anyway is ridiculous. Who calculates that someone is going to shoot them for sneaking to see his girlfriend? The worst he thought was a probable butt whipping, but I'm sure he figured the real risk was that he wouldn't be allowed to see the girl again not a bullet in the spine.

According to a probablecause affidavit in the case, Guzman and the girl had been dating for the past four months. The girl had told her mother Guzman had been sneaking into the house at night. The two were allowed to continue dating, but Guzman was told not to come to the residence without being chaperoned, the affidavit states.

If I tell you, "Do not come into my house," and you come in anyway, then unless you did not hear my statement you have in effect "calculated" by weighing potential consequences vs. potential rewards and chosen to act against my command. This is what this case is about. The "punk" apparently chose to disobey the instruction, but most likely did not expect that the consequence would be so out of sync with the crime. So, the father is wrong for overreacting, but the kid is also wrong for disobeying the direct command.

[Soonerdawg]

Attorneys To Argue Mental Disease, Defect As Defense In Shooting
BENTONVILLE -- Defense attorneys for a man accused of shooting his daughter's boyfriend in August 2007 will raise mental disease or defect as a defense.

...

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/20...courtbrief.txt

I find it interesting that they charged him with a terroristic act and first degree battery. It sounds like their definition of a terroristic act is unconstitutionally vague.