(Houston) Dad shoots at teens who had paintball guns, kills 19-year-old: police

[Hate 20,151]

Not sure if the case here but there is a new class of paintball guns designed to be replicas of tactical firearms.  M16, MP5, Uzi etc.
Google tactical paintball gun to get a look-see.
If they had these it would be conceivable that he walked out side to scare them off and then panicked seeing what appeared to be an armed mob.

Here are a couple of pics of my son and his friend doing paintball. The guns resemble real guns, especially at night.

[JohnnyRage 1,617]

If they were on his property and at night, even lower standards.

[Dahobbs 17,706]

Paintball guns sound nothing like real guns. And where in this story are yall seeing the group was there to cause serious injury to the kid? They came with fucking paintball guns; it sounds like a stupid prank at night. I understand the dad's reaction. Hell, even if the dad knew they were paintball guns I still would understand that reaction. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be a severe over reaction. 

[3shot 139]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Paintball guns sound nothing like real guns. And where in this story are yall seeing the group was there to cause serious injury to the kid? They came with fucking paintball guns; it sounds like a stupid prank at night. I understand the dad's reaction. Hell, even if the dad knew they were paintball guns I still would understand that reaction. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be a severe over reaction. 

From the article:  According to authorities, about 15 teenagers with paintball guns went to a home on Force Street. Police believe the teens went to the home "to fight" a 17-year-old who lives there.

Do you really think a mob of 15 "kids" showing up at your home at night to "to fight" your 17 year old son can somehow NOT be considered a threat to do serious injury?  I mean, none of us have the facts, but it seems weird to me that you seem to come down on the side that the father overreacted given the reported circumstances.  To each there own, but given the reported circumstances, I wouldn't think it was an overreaction even if he shot all 15 of them.        

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

44 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Paintball guns sound nothing like real guns. And where in this story are yall seeing the group was there to cause serious injury to the kid? They came with fucking paintball guns; it sounds like a stupid prank at night. I understand the dad's reaction. Hell, even if the dad knew they were paintball guns I still would understand that reaction. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be a severe over reaction. 

[mulletpelini 5,216]

If you show up to fight wtf you need paint guns

[workswithseed 2,121]

Seems like his kid should be grateful for his dad.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Paintball guns sound nothing like real guns. And where in this story are yall seeing the group was there to cause serious injury to the kid? They came with fucking paintball guns; it sounds like a stupid prank at night. I understand the dad's reaction. Hell, even if the dad knew they were paintball guns I still would understand that reaction. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be a severe over reaction. 

so scared, aren't ya.

You're not going to remotely acknowledge what most likely happened, are ya?

[TxEx99 31]

Yes assaulting someone's home at midnight in Texas seems like a good way to increase your odds of winding up dead.  Kids are probably going to claim harmless joke but anyone shooting shit at your home, while probably yelling and creating a scene to call out your teenage son, cannot be surprised when things escalate.  How can anyone be surprised when dad comes out shooting?  

I know teenagers are dumb and don't think about consequences but for god's sake a mob, and that's what they were, were looking for a fight.  They wanted some and they got some good and hard.  Count me in the camp that says play stupid games win stupid prizes and that parents obviously need to tell their dumbass kids not to use paint guns to attack homes at midnight.  Fucking hell has the world gotten so damn dumb or is it that we hear about all about these idiotic things because of instant 24/7 news?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m guessing calling the police was out of the question?

Firing a warning shot?

strongly worded letter?

Brah.....  It's a jungle out there.  It's either kill ..............or be killed.

[Nueces River Rat 5,566]

I can't blame the Dad at all for reacting in such fashion.  Someone noted he should have noticed they were paintballs because of the splatters on the house.  Little missed note in the article is the fact it was night time which unless the paint was glow in the dark type or the area was well lit, you are not going to see much evidence of splatters.   And the last thing a person is going to ask when seeing a mob with guns of any sorts is  "Hey guys, what are you all carrying tonight?"   I mean if the kids were firing real bullets,  would the Dad have been obligated to see if they hit house before returning fire?   I don't think so..   

In this day where events like this have made the news on multiple occasions, kids should know consequences.   

[Fondren & Main 6,744]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Paintball guns sound nothing like real guns. And where in this story are yall seeing the group was there to cause serious injury to the kid? They came with fucking paintball guns; it sounds like a stupid prank at night. I understand the dad's reaction. Hell, even if the dad knew they were paintball guns I still would understand that reaction. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't also be a severe over reaction. 

What are you some kind of virtue signaling pussy ass shitlib SJW!?  Your logic is fucking retarded.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

I just don't understand how everyone is okay with the father killing one of the teenagers. I'm not saying the mob wasn't the instigator or at fault, or whatever. But it feels like the same people who complain about police being too trigger happy are cheering the same thing with this father. 

There were so many things that could have been done before taking someone's life.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I just don't understand how everyone is okay with the father killing one of the teenagers. I'm not saying the mob wasn't the instigator or at fault, or whatever. But it feels like the same people who complain about police being too trigger happy are cheering the same thing with this father. 

There were so many things that could have been done before taking someone's life.

Yep, like if those kids had even seen the gun they'd have probably high tailed it, or if the father just said I'VE GOT A GUN YOU LITTLE FUCKERS, NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. !!  Or he just fired a warning shot in the air (actually way down the list IMO)...  or called the police, or just kept everyone inside the house...  a lot of ways to avoid the tragedy.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I don’t know what really happened and none of us do. As we understand the facts, I don’t like what the father did, but I certainly understand it, and think he was within his legal right to do what he did. 

Legal, and moral are often way way apart on the things you can do, but probably shouldn't do scale.  He had a lot of things he could have done before shooting someone.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Dr. Beeper said:

Maybe, maybe not. I wasn’t present. 

Yeah, and I'll make allowances for that. We weren't there so can't know what was going on inside his head.

[Dahobbs 17,706]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I don’t know what really happened and none of us do. As we understand the facts, I don’t like what the father did, but I certainly understand it, and think he was within his legal right to do what he did. 

He would be within his legal rights if he thought he was protecting someone from serious bodily injury. I acknowledge it is possible that is exactly what he thought. But, I also see the possibility that he knew a bunch a kids were messing with his home and family and wanted to "show" them or scare them. In the latter scenario, his actions may be understandable, but not legally justified. And, honestly, that latter scenario seems just as if not more likely than he thought his home was being raided by a hit squad. 

Does anyone actually think he would have been justified if he knew they were paintball guns? 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He would be within his legal rights if he thought he was protecting someone from serious bodily injury. I acknowledge it is possible that is exactly what he thought. But, I also see the possibility that he knew a bunch a kids were messing with his home and family and wanted to "show" them or scare them. In the latter scenario, his actions may be understandable, but not legally justified. And, honestly, that latter scenario seems just as if not more likely than he thought his home was being raided by a hit squad. 

Does anyone actually think he would have been justified if he knew they were paintball guns? 

The NRA ?

[Dahobbs 17,706]

55 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

I can't blame the Dad at all for reacting in such fashion.  Someone noted he should have noticed they were paintballs because of the splatters on the house.  Little missed note in the article is the fact it was night time which unless the paint was glow in the dark type or the area was well lit, you are not going to see much evidence of splatters.   And the last thing a person is going to ask when seeing a mob with guns of any sorts is  "Hey guys, what are you all carrying tonight?"   I mean if the kids were firing real bullets,  would the Dad have been obligated to see if they hit house before returning fire?   I don't think so..   

In this day where events like this have made the news on multiple occasions, kids should know consequences.   

If the mob was firing real bullets, would the dad have gone outside to fire back? That just isn't our natural reaction to danger, which is part of the reason I have doubts that he thought the guns were real. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If the mob was firing real bullets, would the dad have gone outside to fire back? That just isn't our natural reaction to danger, which is part of the reason I have doubts that he thought the guns were real. 

 

That or he's just a bad ass with Rambo tendencies written all over him.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,530]

Until we hear more from the “mob” outside, we have half the story. I skeptical they went there to drag a kid out of his own house.  

Personally I think the police shouldn’t be the ones deciding who is and isn’t innocent of defending their safety and house in situations like this.  Arrest the dad, and then let a judge and DA decide next steps.  Being Texas, most likely the dad gets a parade and free NRA membership for life.

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

22 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I just don't understand how everyone is okay with the father killing one of the teenagers. I'm not saying the mob wasn't the instigator or at fault, or whatever. But it feels like the same people who complain about police being too trigger happy are cheering the same thing with this father. 

There were so many things that could have been done before taking someone's life.

I'll reply to you because I know based on other threads you've at least got some common sense to you (not sure about that other guy.)

I understand you POV and it's always a shame when someone loses their life, within circumstance (ask me if I give a fuck about pedos or religious fanatics whose main purpose in life is to kill people like me.) I can't speak for everyone but this isn't a, "hooray, fucker got what was coming to him!!" story for me. This should've been resolved in a multitude of different ways. 

Where you need to focus on is the options the father had from the information we know. This was at midnight. 15 persons ranging from 17-22 years old intruding your property with the intent of property damage, not to mention serious bodily harm, if not murder (how are you seriously going to know in these circumstances,) your son. 

Now that you can look at the situation as we know it, I'm not sure what else the father was supposed to do, and to only have one dead none injured shows a level of restraint to me. Warning shots can get you into trouble. It's called unlawful discharge of a weapon. Plus you're still responsible for where that bullet ends up. Not exactly a smart move if you ask me. 

And the cops? Lol. This was just outside of Denver Harbor. Not too far away from trinity gardens and the 5th ward. Honest question here. What do you think the police response times are in neighborhoods like those and would you risk that time given these circumstances to call 911?

It's sad young people were acting dumb (shocking) and someone lost their life because of it. It's also sad that a father had to go these lengths to protect his son. This is a no win situation for everyone involved and the best take away is using this as a lesson for our own sons. 

That's just my read tho...

[Trey3216 15,379]

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Legal, and moral are often way way apart on the things you can do, but probably shouldn't do scale.  He had a lot of things he could have done before shooting someone.

He has the moral right and authority to protect his family.   He did that 

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He would be within his legal rights if he thought he was protecting someone from serious bodily injury. I acknowledge it is possible that is exactly what he thought. But, I also see the possibility that he knew a bunch a kids were messing with his home and family and wanted to "show" them or scare them. In the latter scenario, his actions may be understandable, but not legally justified. And, honestly, that latter scenario seems just as if not more likely than he thought his home was being raided by a hit squad. 

Does anyone actually think he would have been justified if he knew they were paintball guns? 

It's like you keep doubling down on dumb dumb dumbs. He would be within his legal rights if he thought he was protecting someone from serious bodily harm? Yeah. His fucking son. In the middle of the night. From 15 people carrying weapons of some sort. 

And you want to suggest he was trying to play tough guy? He was somehow going to show this mob of punks who not to mess with on his front yard? Idiot sandwich. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

He has the moral right and authority to protect his family.   He did that 

Wow.  He sure does. I also expect people to think before they do things they can't undo.   As I've stated, I don't know all the facts. I do know we are becoming more like the police shoot first, and ask questions later....

[Dahobbs 17,706]

3 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

I'll reply to you because I know based on other threads you've at least got some common sense to you (not sure about that other guy.)

I understand you POV and it's always a shame when someone loses their life, within circumstance (ask me if I give a fuck about pedos or religious fanatics whose main purpose in life is to kill people like me.) I can't speak for everyone but this isn't a, "hooray, fucker got what was coming to him!!" story for me. This should've been resolved in a multitude of different ways. 

Where you need to focus on is the options the father had from the information we know. This was at midnight. 15 persons ranging from 17-22 years old intruding your property with the intent of property damage, not to mention serious bodily harm, if not murder (how are you seriously going to know in these circumstances,) your son. 

Now that you can look at the situation as we know it, I'm not sure what else the father was supposed to do, and to only have one dead none injured shows a level of restraint to me. Warning shots can get you into trouble. It's called unlawful discharge of a weapon. Plus you're still responsible for where that bullet ends up. Not exactly a smart move if you ask me. 

And the cops? Lol. This was just outside of Denver Harbor. Not too far away from trinity gardens and the 5th ward. Honest question here. What do you think the police response times are in neighborhoods like those and would you risk that time given these circumstances to call 911?

It's sad young people were acting dumb (shocking) and someone lost their life because of it. It's also sad that a father had to go these lengths to protect his son. This is a no win situation for everyone involved and the best take away is using this as a lesson for our own sons. 

That's just my read tho...

We dont know any of that from the article. The only thing in the article is that the police thought the group was there to "fight" the other kid, which is pretty fucking ambiguous. Yall are making a shit ton of assumptions without much information. I am just trying to honestly evaluate the various possibilities. There exist some where he was justified, and others where he wasnt. To me, it seems way early for the cops to be making that call. That is all. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,054]

11 hours ago, Deej said:

My dad would have shot me if I had been firing paintballs at the house at midnight. 

 

I probably would have rather been shot than what my dad would have done to me.

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Until we hear more from the “mob” outside, we have half the story. I skeptical they went there to drag a kid out of his own house.  

Just what do you think the intent was from this "mob" of 15 people at midnight? Or... what other intent could there have possibly been with that many people?

[High Plains Drifter 11,054]

Dad should have hunkered down and called the cops. There probably would have been more than one dead teen after the cops showed up.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, BigHorn'13 said:

Just what do you think the intent was from this "mob" of 15 people at midnight? Or... what other intent could there have possibly been with that many people?

To paintball the kid to death ?

[High Plains Drifter 11,054]

Just now, BigHorn'13 said:

Just what do you think the intent was from this "mob" of 15 people at midnight? Or... what other intent could there have possibly been with that many people?

 

When I saw "fight' in the article, I thought "paint ball fight." Article is unclear.

[Dahobbs 17,706]

1 minute ago, BigHorn'13 said:

It's like you keep doubling down on dumb dumb dumbs. He would be within his legal rights if he thought he was protecting someone from serious bodily harm? Yeah. His fucking son. In the middle of the night. From 15 people carrying weapons of some sort. 

And you want to suggest he was trying to play tough guy? He was somehow going to show this mob of punks who not to mess with on his front yard? Idiot sandwich. 

You obviously have serious reading comprehension issues. I am just suggesting alternate possibilities. I am just suggesting that this situation deserves a thorough investigation and that announcing "justified" the next day seems premature. Do you really not believe it is possible for a man in Texas to go overboard in trying to show some punk kids who is boss? And they were punks. And they were stupid. And sometimes, if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. But that doesn't mean the father's actions were justified absent an actual belief that he was protecting his family from serious bodily injury. Maybe he had that belief. All I am saying is that it isn't obvious to me at all that is the case based on the limited information we have. 

[smuggs 9,354]

Cops now saying he fired at one paintball warrior and the getaway car:

 

https://www.click2houston.com/news/one-dead-after-homeowner-opens-fire-on-would-be-burglars-police-say

Quote

 

Story changes after homeowner shoots person outside his home, police say

HOUSTON - One person is dead after police say a homeowner in east Houston opened fire on someone he believed was a threat.

Initially, police had reported that four people had been trying to break into a homeowner’s vehicle in the 13300 block of Force Street, so the homeowner opened fire, killing one of them. 

After further investigation, police said the group of teens did not appear to be trying to break into the vehicle. 

Police said the residents of the home heard shots outside and thought their home was being shot at, so the father came outside to investigate. 

He saw one of the teens in front of his home and felt threatened, so the father opened fire on him, police said. The father also fired at an SUV the teens used as transportation, police said.

Shortly after the shooting, police said that same SUV showed up at a nearby hospital and a 19-year-old inside was pronounced dead.

“It’s scary. It’s horrible. We have never had anything like this happen before on our block,” said mother, Mayra Jaquez who lives three doors down from where the gunfire erupted.

One neighbor who has lived in the neighborhood for over 60 years said he is stunned by the incident.

“I heard five pops,” said Jim Corbett, 82. "(It's never been) right in front of my house like this before."

One of the bullets struck the front of his home. Corbett says he may buy a pistol to protect himself in the future. 

Officers said they found paintball shells and paintball splatter on the house. Police said they also found shell casings but do not know if they came from the homeowner or someone else.

Police said they are trying to determine if the teens were firing a paintball gun, a normal gun or both.

Authorities said at least one of the teens in the group went to the house to fight a 17-year-old who lives inside the home.

Another neighbor who did not want to be identified said the homeowner was within his rights.

“He was defending his property, you know don’t bring a paintball gun not knowing what the homeowner has there at their home,” the neighbor said.

Police have detained the father and son, along with three others believed to be about 17 years old.

The victim's identity has not yet been released.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17,706]

4 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Just what do you think the intent was from this "mob" of 15 people at midnight? Or... what other intent could there have possibly been with that many people?

Pretty obvious their intent was to paintball the house. Do you think assault squads usually carry fucking paintball guns? They had the wrong weapons if the goal was serious bodily injury, which suggests maybe it wasnt. Whether the dad thought they were trying to seriously hurt someone is the more interesting and pertinent question.

[Huckleberry 33,122]

So the mob is now 4 people and the dad only saw one of them.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

There seems to be a focus on the paintball guns.  Assuming the half of the story about being there to fight the son is true, wouldn't you still be justified in shooting had their been no weapons at all?  Threat of serious bodily harm doesn't have to be from a weapon.

15 people showing up with paintball guns to beat someone up is an odd point to the story, but teenagers are dumb.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were there to do some hazing on the kid. 

[Jkwellborn 6,761]

You can fuck someone up with a paintball gun. I’ve got a cousin that is missing an eye because some kids drove by and shot at him. Hit him in the eye like a porn star.

I hate it for the dad. Don’t feel sorry in the least bit for the bullet sponge.

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

10 minutes ago, smuggs said:

Cops now saying he fired at one paintball warrior and the getaway car:

 

https://www.click2houston.com/news/one-dead-after-homeowner-opens-fire-on-would-be-burglars-police-say

 

So the latest update is that they (probably) shot up the house, with paintballs, and one was there to fight the son. And it's still unclear just how many people were there, not that it matters at this point. 

I'm still going justified on this one without batting an eyelash. Do I now believe there was an element of vigilantism for the father shooting at a fleeing SUV? Absolutely. And he better hope all his shots made the vehicle or he could be in other trouble. Still give the benefit of the doubt when the main fact keeps coming into play-- someone came to fight the son. I just don't see anyway around this one, at least in criminal court. Civil otoh....

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,979]

Y'all who don't think paintball guns can cause serious bodily injury lining up to get shot in the face with a cranked up paintball gun? That can easily take out an eye. Or is that not serious bodily injury?

Plus it's night, so Texas law allows serious leeway. 

[destroya 381]

Why is it the Dad’s responsibility to guess the mob’s intent?

Edited May 23, 2019 by destroya

[riloh05 107]

28 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Dad should have hunkered down and called the cops. There probably would have been more than one dead teen after the cops showed up.

this was my initial thought...i am thinking of a neighborhood with a sidewalk, lawn, brick home, etc...when you look at the picture of the home it doesnt look to be that far from the street and its a shack...so paintball hitting that would sound different than hitting bricks and splattering. just my .02 from what I observed from the house in the pic.

[Prepuce of Doom 21,112]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I just don't understand how everyone is okay with the father killing one of the teenagers. I'm not saying the mob wasn't the instigator or at fault, or whatever. But it feels like the same people who complain about police being too trigger happy are cheering the same thing with this father. 

There were so many things that could have been done before taking someone's life.

New facts have come to light since you posted this, so consider my response from the perspective of before the story changed, but the difference to me is that on one hand, you're talking about public servants whose job it is to serve and protect, and (at least theoretically) to be professionally trained not only to accurately identify threats, but to de-escalate situations without using deadly force. 

On the other hand, you're talking about a dude woken up in the middle of the night while his house is apparently under siege by an angry mob looking to harm his family. 

There is (or should be) a very wide gulf between the standards of reasonable conduct for a police officer versus a citizen. 

The fact that the citizen is often held to a higher standard (while police are often held to none at all) is what galls me about this issue. 

[BigHorn'13 3,387]

3 minutes ago, destroya said:

Why is it the Dad’s responsibility to guess the mob’s intent? 15 teens and adults came to his house in the middle of the night to fight his son and shoot it up with paintballs. His greater moral responsibility is to his family’s safety not the mob outside. 

And warning shots aren’t a thing, just like flashing your gun to de-escalate a violent situation isn’t a thing. The former is unlawful discharge of a firearm; the latter is assault. And both of them give someone a reason to shoot you.

It's because paintball guns aren't deadly and the one kid was there to slap box. The laws can't protect you from not being a mind reader. 

[riloh05 107]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Pretty obvious their intent was to paintball the house. Do you think assault squads usually carry fucking paintball guns? They had the wrong weapons if the goal was serious bodily injury, which suggests maybe it wasnt. Whether the dad thought they were trying to seriously hurt someone is the more interesting and pertinent question.

do you not think it is too early to be this invested?...why are you so invested? were you one of the 15 or parent/guardian? curious.

[SquishMitten 10,450]

39 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

He has the moral right and authority to protect his family.   He did that 

While your first sentence is undeniable, your second is based on an incomplete set of facts. 

Not enough of this story to say one way or the other. Under certain facts, the dad  was fully within his rights, and that the “mob” could be looking at felony murder charges. Under others, the dad could be looking at murder, while the mob gets fined for minor property damage.

[destroya 381]

Just now, BigHorn'13 said:

It's because paintball guns aren't deadly and the one kid was there to slap box. The laws can't protect you from not being a mind reader. 

Again, why should he be responsible for guessing their intent? Did he know they only had paintball guns and that the would be combatants would follow the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.

I fully admit that I don’t know all the facts and my stance is informed by the initial article. It sounds like the father has been detained, and it’s a different situation shooting at a fleeing vehicle. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,979]

9 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

While your first sentence is undeniable, your second is based on an incomplete set of facts. 

Not enough of this story to say one way or the other. Under certain facts, the dad  was fully within his rights, and that the “mob” could be looking at felony murder charges. Under others, the dad could be looking at murder, while the mob gets fined for minor property damage.

Negative Ghost Rider...Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect against criminal mischief at night. Especially at one's own home.

[Asithappens 974]

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't get not charging the father. You don't get to kill people just because they messed up your property with paint. Maybe he thought they were real guns (but that seems unlikely to me), which is really the only way I could see his use of deadly force being reasonable. 

 

 I've asked this of others here before: are you new to Texas?

But seriously, I can totally get not charging the father. Guns, stand your ground, protecting your house/family (from someone whom you think is armed with a real gun).

I would have been very surprised if the dad had been charged. 

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

Do weapons even have to be involved to be justified under Texas self defense/castle doctrine laws?

[Asithappens 974]

The only thing I find odd here is that dad used a rifle and not a shotgun.