PDA

View Full Version : 10 y.o. shoots BG during home break-in


Paladin
07-18-2009, 7:03 AM
Just imagaine how this would play out in the PRK: the children would be taken away from the mother by CPS where they will be told how evil guns are. The mother would be charged w/allowing a minor access to her firearm (and a loaded one at that). The BG would sue the mother for his injuries. The MSM would have non-stop psycho babble officials pontificating on how this incident will permanently scar these children and how it would have been better for the boy to submit to these evildoers, who really aren't thugs, but merely young men w/the sensitive hearts of poets who are victims of society's injustice. There would be further calls for keeping guns outside of homes (and yet keeping them "off of the streets"?). That "Homes are for children, not for guns" or other such stupidity veiled in "compassion" (or is it empathy? ;)). Local government grade schools would force their children to make posters re imagining a world without guns. :puke:

http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=10741492

Child shoots intruder during home break-in
By David Spunt - email

http://wafb.images.worldnow.com/images/10741492_BG1.jpg
Dean Favron (Picture source: West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office)


http://wafb.images.worldnow.com/images/10741492_BG2.jpg
Roderick Porter


PORT ALLEN, LA (WAFB) - A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face, police said.

Late Tuesday, West Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies received a call to a Port Allen apartment complex after several shots rang out from inside one of the apartments. "You are out here trying to work and for someone to come and do that and invade your home is very hard," the children's mother said. She asked to not be identified.

Deputies say Dean Favron and Roderick Porter knocked several times on the apartment door. The two young children, a ten-year-old boy and eight-year-old girl, stood on the other side, terrified. "He told his sister to be quiet and seconds later, they started kicking on the door and finally kicked the door in," said Sheriff Mike Cazes. The two children ran to their mother's bedroom closet.

In a panic, the ten-year-old grabbed his mother's gun for protection. "He did what I told him to do. I never told him to get the gun, but thank God he did," she said. Once the two suspects opened the door, threatening the kids, deputies say the boy fired a bullet into the lip of Roderick Porter. The two men were taken to the hospital by a third suspect, who is a 15-year-old juvenile. Once they got to the hospital, they were later arrested. "It's just hard. I don't understand why they would do that. I know they have little brothers and sisters and they wouldn't want anyone to break into their house," said the mother.

Each man is held on $150,000 bond. The juvenile, was taken to a local detention center. One of the suspects, Dean Favron, just finished serving almost seven years in prison for aggravated assault on a Baton Rouge police officer and two carjacking charges. He was released on June 6th.

Both men will appear before a judge next month.

PatriotnMore
07-18-2009, 7:07 AM
The boy should be given a medal for bravery. Good on him for protecting his sister, hard to be the man of the house at 10.

Spearo
07-18-2009, 7:13 AM
OMG, so they mean to say the man was not rehabilitated in prison.
Released on June.6 and already back in. Oh the injustices, oh the injustices. We need to pay for this man to see the prison psychiatrist daily.:rolleyes:

HondaMasterTech
07-18-2009, 7:14 AM
I would rather imagine what an armed 10 year old boy would do to an intruder than what an intruder would do to an unarmed 10 year old boy.

Blue
07-18-2009, 7:23 AM
I would rather imagine what an armed 10 year old boy would do to an intruder than what an intruder would do to an unarmed 10 year old boy.

+1 on that, good shootin boy!

JohnnyRooks
07-18-2009, 7:24 AM
I would rather imagine what an armed 10 year old boy would do to an intruder than what an intruder would do to an unarmed 10 year old boy.

you forgot his sister..

yellowfin
07-18-2009, 7:25 AM
Something I'm missing here: shot in the lip? If I'm reading that correctly, it was either a glancing sideways hit or a really weak or small round for the perp not to be DRT. At very least they'll need some new dental work.

HondaMasterTech
07-18-2009, 7:27 AM
you forgot his sister..

No, I didn't.

glockwise2000
07-18-2009, 7:36 AM
+1 on the boy for bravery.

HeyZeus
07-18-2009, 7:50 AM
http://wafb.images.worldnow.com/images/10741492_BG2.jpg

Judging from the picture he has large lips. Maybe a gold tooth as well. Both of these could have contributed to a round not doing it's job. To bad maybe next time. :p

socal2310
07-18-2009, 7:56 AM
Something I'm missing here: shot in the lip? If I'm reading that correctly, it was either a glancing sideways hit or a really weak or small round for the perp not to be DRT. At very least they'll need some new dental work.

I don't know about that, remember the story about the Army Sergeant who took a 9mm round in the face with no more damage than a hole in his lip and a missing tooth? (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/teeth.asp)

Scotty
07-18-2009, 8:15 AM
Something like this HAS happen in California about 15 years ago.

It happened in Arcadia, CA in the gated community above Foothills Junior High School. Mom was home with the two kids, I think they were sick or something. Two guys climbed up the hill from Foothills Jr. High and broke in. The mom and daughter were tied up. One guy had a gun, the other guy had a knife. The son was upstairs at the time and heard what was going on. He went and got his dad's gun. The guy with the knife went upstairs to search the house and ran into the kid who then fired. The other guy then took off knowing the other guy was only carrying a knife. No charges filed by the police against the kid since it was self-defense.

Maestro Pistolero
07-18-2009, 1:55 PM
Each man is held on $150,000 bond. The juvenile, was taken to a local detention center.

WTF?

7222 Hawker
07-18-2009, 2:03 PM
I'm surprised the media didn't crucify the mom for leaving a gun where junior could get to it. Sounds to me like she did a good job raising the boy to be familiar with guns and when and how to use them.

Good job son.

odysseus
07-18-2009, 2:04 PM
The juvenile, was taken to a local detention center.

This is a 10 year old child. The article just glazed over this fact and him being put into a jail. :mad:

professorhard
07-18-2009, 2:04 PM
WTF?

The juvenille that they are referring to is the 15 y/I who drove the wounded men to the hospital

berman1969
07-18-2009, 2:07 PM
this kid is nothing short of a hero!!!!!!!!

berman1969
07-18-2009, 2:09 PM
WTF?

i think there talking about the juvinille purp.not the kid who did the shooting...

odysseus
07-18-2009, 2:25 PM
i think there talking about the juvinille purp.not the kid who did the shooting...

That makes more sense.

Creeping Incrementalism
07-18-2009, 2:42 PM
Something like this HAS happen in California about 15 years ago.

It happened in Arcadia, CA in the gated community above Foothills Junior High School. Mom was home with the two kids, I think they were sick or something. Two guys climbed up the hill from Foothills Jr. High and broke in. The mom and daughter were tied up. One guy had a gun, the other guy had a knife. The son was upstairs at the time and heard what was going on. He went and got his dad's gun. The guy with the knife went upstairs to search the house and ran into the kid who then fired. The other guy then took off knowing the other guy was only carrying a knife. No charges filed by the police against the kid since it was self-defense.

Was the law regarding a juvenile under 16 possessing ammo w/o parental supervision or written permission passed since "about 15 years ago"?

StoneRoots
07-18-2009, 2:51 PM
This is the reason my father had me at the range @ 10 years old, and the same reason my son will be at the range. Dont let yourself be a victim. -SR

RandyD
07-18-2009, 2:59 PM
I have no doubt that if this happened in one of California's major metropolitan areas, CPS, in the aftermath of the self defense shooting, would have taken both children into protective custody because their mother did not lock up the firearm. This is my personal opinion as an attorney, based on representing parents against California's Gestapo, CPS.

nick
07-18-2009, 3:10 PM
This is a 10 year old child. The article just glazed over this fact and him being put into a jail. :mad:

It's the 15-y.o. juvenile who was with the burglars, the one who delivered them to the hospital.

Liberty1
07-18-2009, 3:12 PM
Stories like this help defeat the states cry for licensing and training standards. Victims are very capable, with no training, of identifying a serious threat and pulling the trigger responsibly.

Or maybe it was the 7 years of playing with cap guns which prepared him for that day. :)

7222 Hawker
07-18-2009, 3:28 PM
Or maybe it was the 7 years of playing with cap guns which prepared him for that day. :)[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure my first Red Ryder helped me out on qual day at Pendleton! ;)

blackberg
07-18-2009, 3:35 PM
so he shot one and the lips, and 2 the hospital ?
Nice!
-bb

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-18-2009, 3:37 PM
Just imagaine how this would play out in the PRK: the children would be taken away from the mother by CPS where they will be told how evil guns are. The mother would be charged w/allowing a minor access to her firearm (and a loaded one at that). The BG would sue the mother for his injuries. The MSM would have non-stop psycho babble officials pontificating on how this incident will permanently scar these children and how it would have been better for the boy to submit to these evildoers, who really aren't thugs, but merely young men w/the sensitive hearts of poets who are victims of society's injustice. There would be further calls for keeping guns outside of homes (and yet keeping them "off of the streets"?). That "Homes are for children, not for guns" or other such stupidity veiled in "compassion" (or is it empathy? ;)). Local government grade schools would force their children to make posters re imagining a world without guns. :puke:

i don't think you have enough hyperbole here, maybe try and add some more?

M198
07-18-2009, 3:51 PM
Something I'm missing here: shot in the lip? If I'm reading that correctly, it was either a glancing sideways hit or a really weak or small round for the perp not to be DRT. At very least they'll need some new dental work.

Maybe he was using the most deadly weapon in the world, a shotgun.

SJgunguy24
07-18-2009, 11:43 PM
:rofl2::rofl2:
That's just too damn funny right there!!!!!

Kudo's to the boy, i'd like to buy him a beer oop's my bad:eek: a milkshake:thumbsup:


http://wafb.images.worldnow.com/images/10741492_BG2.jpg

Judging from the picture he has large lips. Maybe a gold tooth as well. Both of these could have contributed to a round not doing it's job. To bad maybe next time.:p

N6ATF
07-19-2009, 12:30 AM
If only he was shot in the hip and not the lip... good luck being an able-bodied criminal after that...

There's an age of criminal responsibility, what about civil? Can you sue a 10 year old for crippling you?

Maestro Pistolero
07-19-2009, 12:46 AM
Ah, the 15 year-old went to detention. that wasn't clear to me from the article.
THNX

Greg-Dawg
07-19-2009, 12:57 AM
+1 to the kid.

ivanimal
07-19-2009, 1:05 AM
Well I for one am glad my kid knows how to shoot.

Pin a medal on that boy and buy him a steak.

JDay
07-19-2009, 1:19 AM
WTF?

They're talking about the 15 year old kid who was with the other two perps.

dexter9659
07-19-2009, 1:25 AM
I cant wait for the court date.

Attorney: "Mr Porter can you please identify the person who shot you in the face?"

Porter: "It was the little 10 year old boy in the front row."

Seesm
07-19-2009, 2:21 AM
Good on ya little man!!

socal2310
07-19-2009, 7:21 AM
Just imagine how this would play out in the PRK: the children would be taken away from the mother by CPS where they will be told how evil guns are. The mother would be charged w/allowing a minor access to her firearm (and a loaded one at that).

It's worse than that. Since the PC doesn't become operative until a crime or accident happens with the firearm, she would be denied the due process of criminal court where you are (ostensibly) innocent until proved guilty.

Ryan

Scotty
07-19-2009, 7:41 AM
Was the law regarding a juvenile under 16 possessing ammo w/o parental supervision or written permission passed since "about 15 years ago"?

It still wouldn't matter considering the law has a provision for self defense.

12035. (a) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) "Locking device" means a device that is designed to prevent the firearm from functioning and when applied to the firearm, renders the firearm inoperable.
(2) "Loaded firearm" has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 12031.
(3) "Child" means a person under 18 years of age.
(4) "Great bodily injury" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 12022.7.
(5) "Locked container" has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 12026.2.
(b)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree" if he or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to himself, herself, or any other person.
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree" if he or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself, herself, or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(1) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(2) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
(3) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto so that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
(4) The firearm is locked with a locking device that has rendered the firearm inoperable.
(5) The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's duties.
(6) The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person, or persons.
(7) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premise that is under his or her custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.
(d) Criminal storage of a firearm is punishable as follows:
(1) Criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree, by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine; or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(2) Criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(e) If the person who allegedly violated this section is the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting, the district attorney shall consider, among other factors, the impact of the injury or death on the person alleged to have violated this section when deciding whether to prosecute an alleged violation. It is the Legislature's intent that a parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner or where similarly egregious circumstances exist. This subdivision shall not otherwise restrict, in any manner, the factors that a district attorney may consider when deciding whether to prosecute alleged violations of this section.
(f) If the person who allegedly violated this section is the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting, no arrest of the person for the alleged violation of this section shall occur until at least seven days after the date upon which the accidental shooting occurred.
In addition to the limitation contained in this subdivision, a law enforcement officer shall consider the health status of a child who suffers great bodily injury as the result of an accidental shooting prior to arresting a person for a violation of this section, if the person to be arrested is the parent or guardian of the injured child. The intent of this subdivision is to encourage law enforcement officials to delay the arrest of a parent or guardian of a seriously injured child while the child remains on life-support equipment or is in a similarly critical medical condition.
(g)(1) The fact that the person who allegedly violated this section attended a firearm safety training course prior to the purchase of the firearm that is obtained by a child in violation of this section shall be considered a mitigating factor by a district attorney when he or she is deciding whether to prosecute the alleged violation.
(2) In any action or trial commenced under this section, the fact that the person who allegedly violated this section attended a firearm safety training course prior to the purchase of the firearm that is obtained by a child in violation of this section, shall be admissible.
(h) Every person licensed under Section 12071 shall post within the licensed premises the notice required by paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of that section, disclosing the duty imposed by this section upon any person who keeps a loaded firearm.

ZRX61
07-19-2009, 6:31 PM
Can you imagine how much fun the other perps in jail are going to have with an idiot who was owned by a 10yo..

stuckinhippytown
07-19-2009, 8:19 PM
Can you imagine how much fun the other perps in jail are going to have with an idiot who was owned by a 10yo..

ROFL Oh man I would hang myself with the bedsheets if that was me

forgiven
07-19-2009, 8:43 PM
Way to go young man.:thumbsup:

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Sounds like the kid should be given a medal.

Asphodel
07-20-2009, 11:24 AM
Is there any information on the weapon used by the 10-year old?

From the description, it would seem that he used a light handgun.....and I'll have to admit that I am tremendously impressed, in that the 10-year old 'kept his head', identified the threat correctly, and aligned the weapon laterally when he fired......yes, he should have hit a few inches higher......but given all the circumstances, he performed as near perfectly as many experienced adults could have done........and, more so, from some of the stories we've all read, than many allegedly experienced adults have done.

I'll add a story on edit, from a lot of years ago.......this really happened, and it, I suppose, shows how very much some things have changed. Farm and ranch kids were a lot more knowledgeable about guns back then. A 12 (If I remember correctly) year old girl was at home alone doing kitchen housework when a 'crazy man' walked into a house, and wouldn't leave when she told him 'go away', but threatened her with a knife. (I don't remember the story quite well enough.....maybe the dog distracted the man enough to let her get the shotgun, or he was stabbing at the dog with the knife, something like that.....somehow, anyway, she was able to reach the shotgun, and cycle it (the usual common practice was to keep either a 30-30 or a shotgun with the mag loaded but the chamber clear, in the kitchen, lest a bad dog, or other dangerous animal, appear in the yard)

In pure terror, she 'gut shot' shot him with a 12 gauge shotgun at close range. When her parents got home, she was 'in shock' and 'hysterical', having dragged the body outside, and was frantically trying to clean up the gory mess of the criminal's remains in the kitchen. She had to stay home from school for quite some time, recovering from the emotional trauma of the incident.

cheers

Carla

hkusp9c
07-20-2009, 12:20 PM
A very brave and smart one. I hope the boy is ok since he's prolly under a lot of stress after the incident

magsnubby
07-20-2009, 12:43 PM
...A 12 (If I remember correctly) year old girl was at home alone doing kitchen housework when a 'crazy man' walked into a house, and wouldn't leave when she told him 'go away', but threatened her with a knife. (I don't remember the story quite well enough.....maybe the dog distracted the man enough to let her get the shotgun, or he was stabbing at the dog with the knife, something like that.....somehow, anyway, she was able to reach the shotgun...


Wasn't that somewhere in Central Cal, like Merced or Modesto or somewhere in that area?

For those of you who think it can only happen in California:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204394

Remember New Orleans after Katrina?

CAL.BAR
07-20-2009, 1:46 PM
Yes - in KA the mother could be prosecuted for allowing a young child to have access to a firearm.

CAL.BAR
07-20-2009, 1:52 PM
However. . to be fair - if I posted the question "how many think I should leave a handgun with my 10y.o to defend the house when I'm gone" I don't think I'd get too many positive results. And I think that 99 times out of a hundred, kids given access to firearms turns out rather badly.

lioneaglegriffin
07-20-2009, 1:56 PM
i hope the boy does get any emotial scars and what not, if not take that kid to chubby cheese or.... buy him a youth gun :43:

bomb_on_bus
07-20-2009, 2:24 PM
Man I love hearing stories like this!

I'm glad that the would be robbers didn't have a gun and the would be victims DID have a gun. Once in a great while something works out for the good people.

There was a story similar to this I read a few months back that took place in Montana. If I remeber right a house was broken in to by two assailants. There was a teenage girl staying in the house while her parents were away on vacation. All I remember of the story is the girl was upstairs when she heard commotion down stairs which prompted her to grab her shot gun. She was a competition or trophy shotgunner, I can't remember which one. But anywho she waited for them to start comming up the stairs and blasted away.

Its stories like these that hardly ever see the light of day. But on the other hand gang violence is plastered all over the news, especially if there were innocent victims.

7x57
07-20-2009, 2:53 PM
Farm and ranch kids were a lot more knowledgeable about guns back then.

What makes you think farm & ranch kids have changed a bit?

However, agriculture isn't necessary. Mas Ayoob tells the story of handing his sidearm to his pre-teen daughter before going to help an officer scuffling with a perp and telling her to lock the doors and if the worst happens and he tries to get in, to shoot him. Since he'd taught her to shoot the local police qualifier with a full-sized gun already, he had no qualms about doing that.

Farm & ranch kids aren't any different, it's just that they're far, far more likely to be taught to be responsible, self-sufficient, and confident that they can do whatever needs to be done. You can do that without the farm if you're determined to.

7x57

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 3:07 PM
Yea, buy him a steak (or cheeseburger, whatever), a milk shake, AND the biggest caliber handgun he can handle and some training in double tapping.

CAL.BAR
07-20-2009, 3:27 PM
However. . to be fair - if I posted the question "how many think I should leave a handgun with my 10y.o to defend the house when I'm gone" I don't think I'd get too many positive results. And I think that 99 times out of a hundred, kids given access to firearms turns out rather badly.

edgekidxxx
07-20-2009, 3:38 PM
However. . to be fair - if I posted the question "how many think I should leave a handgun with my 10y.o to defend the house when I'm gone" I don't think I'd get too many positive results. And I think that 99 times out of a hundred, kids given access to firearms turns out rather badly.

This is true but making it abundantly clear that you do own a firearm, and making sure they know it is not a toy. Along with showing them how it works and things of this nature could only benefit your home IMHO. But to each his own i suppose. In any case this boy did a very brave thing and it could have ended very tragically if he hadn't.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 5:02 PM
And I think that 99 times out of a hundred, kids given access to firearms turns out rather badly.

That's what the traitors who endlessly infringe and support infringements on the 2A want you to believe.

phamkl
07-20-2009, 6:02 PM
So long as the kids are taught the weight of responsibility then it'd be perfectly ok. As it is, I know a lot of people who aren't to be trusted with guns. This is based not on prejudice, but on muzzles being pointed everywhere.

M. Sage
07-20-2009, 8:49 PM
However. . to be fair - if I posted the question "how many think I should leave a handgun with my 10y.o to defend the house when I'm gone" I don't think I'd get too many positive results. And I think that 99 times out of a hundred, kids given access to firearms turns out rather badly.

Not true. I had constant access to firearms and ammo growing up, as did my brother. I see very little reason to do it any other way unless your kid is absolutely insane or you've done your job as a parent wrong.

pingpong
07-21-2009, 1:41 AM
Damn, too bad he didn't get a clean shot. Now the state has to pay to fix the BG's face AND pay for his incarceration.

magsnubby
07-21-2009, 12:45 PM
Yes - in KA the mother could be prosecuted for allowing a young child to have access to a firearm.

Depends on the situation. If Mommy leaves a loaded gun hidden under a mattress and little Julie finds it, points it at big brother Bobby, pulls the trigger, and big brother drops dead, then Mommy is in deep stuff. And she should be. Anyone that leaves a loaded weapon where it can been found by a curious child deserves to suffer the consequences of their careless actions.

I was raised around firearms, and although i knew the consequences of any unauthorized handleing would be swift and severe it still didn't stop me from sneaking a peek now and then when the parents were away. My children, and now my grandchildren, were raised around and taught to respect firearms. But you can bet your bottom dollar that anytime my guns aren't in my sight they are locked in my gun safe. It's just totally unresponsable not to.

Asphodel
07-21-2009, 1:51 PM
What makes you think farm & ranch kids have changed a bit?

Farm & ranch kids aren't any different, it's just that they're far, far more likely to be taught to be responsible, self-sufficient, and confident that they can do whatever needs to be done. You can do that without the farm if you're determined to.

7x57

7X57, I apologise, you are quite right.......

Farm and ranch kids, as a generality, learn about death.....the death of animals, for slaughter, as a 'normalcy of life' at an early age.......and they, sadly, have to learn about the tragedies of accidental death or terrible injury with farm equipment......but, y'know, 'its different' with human beings, in a way which is not easy to explain.......'hunting accidents', however rare, have happened, and those, too, are a 'part of life'.

Having to make the choice to defend oneself by intentionally killing a human being is a very different thing......and its not easy to explain just how its different........but it is......its just so very different.

Maybe I'm wrong......totally wrong.....in fact, I really hope that I am.......but I get the impression that the urbanised young people of today just aren't taught to understand the situation in the same way that we were, back then.

I know this isn't right, exactly, but it just seems.....from the news, anyway......that since some of these fool young kids haven't any chance to do 'real' hunting, so they.....in effect.....hunt one another........the natural 'hunting instinct' of a predatory species, which we humans are, twisted into psychosis by circumstances which really shouldn't exist.

cheers

Carla

Aldemar
07-21-2009, 2:01 PM
:rofl2::rofl2:
That's just too damn funny right there!!!!!

Kudo's to the boy, i'd like to buy him a beer oop's my bad:eek: a milkshake:thumbsup:

You were right the first time....if a 10 year old can take care of himself as well as his sister like that, he deserves a beer!!

AL

7x57
07-21-2009, 2:11 PM
Maybe I'm wrong......totally wrong.....in fact, I really hope that I am.......but I get the impression that the urbanised young people of today just aren't taught to understand the situation in the same way that we were, back then.

I know this isn't right, exactly, but it just seems.....from the news, anyway......that since some of these fool young kids haven't any chance to do 'real' hunting, so they.....in effect.....hunt one another........the natural 'hunting instinct' of a predatory species, which we humans are, twisted into psychosis by circumstances which really shouldn't exist.


My dad used to have a saying--"if you take your boy hunting, you never have to go hunting for your boy."

Going too far down this rabbit hole is a good way for me to get into trouble, because I have some awfully incorrect ideas that can be summarized by saying that essentially we have a culture that murders little boys, and suffer the consequences of it.

You can teach a little boy that a man stands between his community and danger, and if you do the job well you can even teach him that the purpose of strength is to be used on behalf of those weaker than he is.

But you cannot attempt to teach him that there is no meaning in becoming strong without losing him those who tell him that the meaning is that he can have what he can take. You cannot teach him that he is no different than a little girl without finding that he has the worst traits of both and the best traits of neither.

I think that is an Iron Law of society, but because the modern prejudice is so extreme in regard to refusing to recognize gender-based distinctions I don't think society has any option other than to suffer the consequences of teaching an unreal philosophy. If you kill your little boys spiritually, it should probably not be surprising if they live as boys whose spirit has been killed. Boys without a positive affirmation of their spirit *as boys* are dangerous, dangerous animals.

There is probably another Iron Law to the effect that women always unconsciously despise a feminized boy even if they consciously believe otherwise, but perhaps I won't argue that one.

To try to remain somewhat on topic, there was a time when the adults would have praised this boy as having behaved as a man instead of twittering about how traumatic it must be, and in doing so actually altered the effect of the event on the boy. The funny thing about that is how much less traumatic it is likely to be if you give the trauma a positive higher meaning. The best way to give a positive meaning to such an event requires the entire community to acknowledge that the boy has passed a rite-of-passage even though it should not have come so soon. Today, it's unlikely that the entire community will do that.

7x57

hoozaru
07-21-2009, 2:28 PM
should work on his shot placement or use a better round, so the two criminals wouldn't even get a chance to see the Judge again. But for a 10 yr old, i think he did pretty well.

M. Sage
07-21-2009, 4:13 PM
He's alive, whole and unharmed. He won, no matter what shape the bad guys were in after the fight.

vrand
07-21-2009, 4:32 PM
+1 on that, good shootin boy!

:thumbsup:

I like happy endings :)

supra95tt
07-22-2009, 2:19 AM
I hope my son would have done the same thing regardless of the outcome. If your in this situation, you only have one option.

Asphodel
07-23-2009, 3:24 PM
7X57,

I think I hear what you are saying, and if I hear you correctly, you are commenting on the values of a family and community structure which was a vitally important tradition in our culture.

I think I hear echoes of the tradition which John Wayne tried to portray in his movies......'to ride, shoot straight, and tell the truth'.

I fear that some of this refers to an older America, one which exists only in some areas now.

And, yes, it does seem obvious enough that a young woman who seeks a strong husband/father figure for her children won't be interested in a 'feminised' boy.

Yet, I'd query the term 'feminised'........how is one to balance between a young man who is 'robbed of his potential manhood', and one who is mis-taught to be a 'machismo' abuser? I've seen far too many of both.

Maybe I'm wrong, but lets think about this for a moment........many of the occupations and responsibilities once considered 'men's work' simply no longer exist in the way they once did, since so much of America has become increasingly de-industrialised and more urbanised.

As technology has evolved, young women become skilled medical personnel, long-haul truck drivers, mechanics, and 'computer/electronic design geeks' in a position of equivalency with their male peers. At one time it would have been 'unthinkable' for a young woman to be the one pulling the hoisting/traverse clutches on a heavy crane........now, its a daily reality.

On one level, yes, this dramatically changes the influences on young people, and, often, for the worst......as witness the rise of a criminal class who have 'working mothers' and no responsible father figures.

I'd be happy to agree with anyone who says that our economy should provide for good steady employment for fathers, so that stay-at-home mothers could be real home-makers and provide their children with the close and loving maternal supervision children really need for good development.

Equally, tho, as boys may seem 'feminised' by our urbanised culture, many young women have little choice but to 'masculinise' themselves, if they are to have jobs above the 'pink collar' level of 'servility'.

Gender-specific characteristics once considered 'cultural normalcies' are in a state of flux, and are evolving in ways we cannot predict.

There are larger-scale issues with our economy which I cannot claim to understand, but which have, and will continue to have, a profound effect on the influences in the lives of our children. Its rather graphically obvious that these aren't good influence, as a generality.

I can say 'I do wish it didn't have to be this way'........but what, if anything, can we do to influence positive change, other than on a personal level with the individuals we know personally?

cheers

Carla

M. Sage
07-23-2009, 5:47 PM
Interesting points, Carla.

I will say though, that being a "masculine" male isn't entirely about the job that he holds. A man's job doesn't define him; he should define the job if anything (yes, I'm a fairly stereotypical auto mechanic, but I was like this before the job). It's about how a man acts. Among other things, it's about keeping a calm demeanor and cool head when others are letting their emotions run away. It's about choosing what's right over what's easy. About a certain way of prioritizing.

A "feminized" man will let his emotions get the better of him and is far more likely concerned with form over function. This is something they have in common with the bully that you mentioned. Bullies and feminized males are always, without fail, more concerned with looking or seeming cool than with actually being cool.

What can we do to influence positive change? I have no idea what we can do on a large scale, but on a small scale we can encourage the people we know on a personal level.

Speaking personally, I aspire to living up to the more traditional traits of "to ride, shoot straight and tell the truth" and hope I do a good job. In my life that means that when there's a crisis, I'm the rock that holds my wife up when she thinks that the world is falling apart. I've done this, and will do this, every time, no matter how bad things seem. I was taught (by men) as a kid that throwing things, screaming at fate, etc. doesn't every do anything to make a situation better. This, IMO, is a trait that real men possess and "feminized" men lack.

I'd be quick to add that I don't consider "masculine" to be limited to heterosexual men. It's not about who you sleep with, it's about how you live your life.

TurboS600
07-23-2009, 6:34 PM
That young man needs a medal, and some marksmanship training. In the lip????:confused: He was about 3 inches low and 1 inch off center. Good job for a little man of the house. :clap::clap:

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 7:30 PM
Instead of worrying if they are strong "boys or girls" why not just worry about raising the child to be strong. In this day and age there isn't always going to be a "man" around and quite frankly strong doesn't discriminate to gender.

My parents raised me to be honest and hard working and caring and to be responsible for my own actions. I raised my daughter the same way. I hope that someday when she has children she will raise them the same way.

Kid Stanislaus
07-23-2009, 11:24 PM
http://wafb.images.worldnow.com/images/10741492_BG2.jpg

Judging from the picture he has large lips. Maybe a gold tooth as well. Both of these could have contributed to a round not doing it's job. To bad maybe next time. :p

TSK! TSK! TSK!

Kid Stanislaus
07-23-2009, 11:39 PM
I was raised in Orland and many years ago (I'm 66 now) a 12 yr. old farm girl shot and killed a guy who was trying to get into the house while her mother was milking the cows. The general opinion of the local populace was "She done good". The same thing applies to this ten yr. old boy.

7x57
07-24-2009, 1:51 AM
Yet, I'd query the term 'feminised'........how is one to balance between a young man who is 'robbed of his potential manhood', and one who is mis-taught to be a 'machismo' abuser? I've seen far too many of both.


Both are failures, but to place them in opposition as though they form the endpoints of a spectrum is to make a grave, but culturally conditioned mistake. They are often enough two sides of the same coin. I mentioned both, but probably am not too clear as this isn't a theory I get as much practice arguing.

Neither boy learned any positive meaning to becoming strong (and strong doesn't have to mean physically). The second boy instead learned a negative meaning. We deserve the consequences when he learns that to be strong means something destructive, like the person who will not train a puppy deserves the impossible dog he will get. The first boy may be afraid of being strong, for fear of becoming destructive. In our society, that is somewhat likely.

This is actually relevant to gun control, because the core belief of gun control is that people--and we might as well admit that men in particular are meant--will be savage animals if given the opportunity. That is to say, the gun represents a kind of strength, and strength has no positive value. That idea has political power because people act on a culturally conditioned belief. But what does it mean to teach, really teach that belief to adolescent boys? It means that the culture itself is actually teaching the same thing that the human predator on the street corner teaches--that the meaning of strength is to take what you wish. A boy may act on that by becoming a predator, but he may also be decent enough to reject that option. But the only alternative he has been given is to avoid being strong at all. One became a predator, the other became prey, but both made the same fundamental error.

It is an absolute catastrophe for society to agree with the human predator and even teach the same thing, but that is what we do. And, I claim, suffer severe consequences.

Interestingly, being an armed citizen does imply that positive meaning, one that seems to be understood in almost every time and place but ours. it says that there is a third option to being predator or prey. It gives a positive meaning to courage.

There is a very old way of saying all that and more, which was influential in the Western tradition until the end. Plato's chariot metaphor is a bit tedious to explain just now, but through it he more or less says that if you don't teach a boy that it is manly to be good, he will believe that it is manly to be bad. Then he must choose between being manly and being good, because he can't be both. One should probably infer that a society in which the good are cowards and the brave are bad is a society that will eat itself alive. Sound like a familiar society to you?

Anyway, the truth is I was mostly riffing on Plato. I believe that what he says about moral education is as true as his political philosophy is hideously evil, but if I say that then people's built-in conditioning to avoid real learning kicks in so I sort of snuck it in the back way. Sorry...well, no I'm not either, not even a little. :D But I think it's in Phaedrus, and is worth reading if you're able to read such things with profit.


Maybe I'm wrong, but lets think about this for a moment........many of the occupations and responsibilities once considered 'men's work' simply no longer exist in the way they once did


One reason for that is intrinsic and irreversible--technology by nature helps the less talented the most, closes the gap with the more talented. Physical strength is a talent like others, and it matters less in a world of machines just as hand-eye coordination matters less in a world of machine tools and electronics.

The other reason is that it is simply a philosophical presupposition, and here I will only observe that modern philosophical thought is essentially unique in ascribing no intrinsic meaning to gender. To the degree that this affects society, it is self-fulfilling, because it affects what people think they "ought to" want or be. That has a lot more effect on us than we like to admit. But that's too large a topic, so let me try to fold it back in by offering one idea. If, perchance, we are wrong and gender is more than a matter of peripheral appliances, then it becomes more important rather than less to offer an explicit positive meaning to becoming a man (or woman, but frankly I will not pontificate about that), because there is a need there even less likely to be fulfilled by some other social mechanism.

On the subject of biological imperatives, I find it odd that a materialistic society finds itself unable to believe that there may be essential behavioral and personality consequences to the biological fact that the survival of the mother and children has greater reproductive value to both parents than survival of the father. Classical ethics is actually more comprehensible in evolutionary terms than modern ethics.

You might also think about how adolescents court and ask yourself if the boys don't attempt to show their ability to ensure the girl's survival and the courage to do so when it is risky, and whether the girls don't require precisely that of them. You have to look before we make them ashamed of it, however, because then the biological script becomes less obvious.

Biological scripts pop up all the time whether we think we're too advanced for them or not. My wife was somewhat freaked out by the idea of self-defense until we had children. Her real instinctive belief turns out to be something like a mamma bear's, :eek: and I don't believe for a second that that was somehow learned.


I can say 'I do wish it didn't have to be this way'........but what, if anything, can we do to influence positive change, other than on a personal level with the individuals we know personally?


It doesn't hurt to teach little boys that they're obliged to be able to shoot well and handle a gun safely in any kind of situation. :D (I wouldn't suggest teaching the girls any different skills, but the reason you give why they should learn may be different.)

That's a flip answer because I'm going to bed, but as a beginning it isn't really wrong.

7x57

GuyW
07-24-2009, 9:59 AM
This is actually relevant to gun control, because the core belief of gun control is that people--and we might as well admit that men in particular are meant--will be savage animals if given the opportunity.

Wait! I thought he PC humanist position was that all people are born good, and are perfectable??

.

7x57
07-24-2009, 11:48 AM
Wait! I thought he PC humanist position was that all people are born good, and are perfectable??


Well, that's so, but there are some subtle points that interplay here, and I don't know the best order to list them.

The first seems to be an inevitable consequence of what we might call Original Innocence. Except for a few mystical enough to claim that evil itself is an illusion, the holder of such a theory must identify a source of evil outside of the person. The duty of the philosopher-king or cultural engineer, then, is to quarantine the proletariat from evil. It's probably not *necessary* to believe in gun control in this scheme, and we have a few definite liberals who seem to accept that, but it is natural and tempting. For guns are external objects associated with a certain class of crimes. Therefore it fits extremely well with the system to identify them as an external source of evil or at least a vector that spreads it. The philosopher-king's duty is clear: quarantine guns away from the deimos.

The second is that it's probably wrong to suggest that the presence of mutually exclusive theories are in fact much of a problem at all to most people. An egregious example is the dual, Janus-like cultural picture of American slaves. The one face is that of a happy, irresponsible, foolish child; on the other is the subhuman grimace of an animalistic savage. They're contradictory, but each serves too valuable a philosophical role to discard. The happy child creates a comfortable picture of benign paternalism, and this bridges the chasm between the economic dependence on slavery and the apologia for revolution that all men are created equal. If the slave is incapable of the duties of a citizen, he cannot have the status and benefits. Instead, the citizen must have the authority of a father to order the child's life.

On the other hand, when things are tense, as they will be in a society where a significant fraction of the population is controlled against their will by main force, using the whips and dogs threatens to create the impossible image of beating and killing children. At this point, the other face is turned, and force, deadly force if necessary, is reasonable to control and cage the subhuman savages.

I went on about that example because I think it's relevant: the iconography far outlasted the peculiar institution, and I believe is the direct lineal ancestor of the left's view of the people today. The state must order and control all on behalf of the foolish children--but if they get guns then the whips and clubs must be used to crush the animals and savages.

In fact, notice that the left's Protected Classes *are* treated as foolish children, except for the few who have the aptitude to become philosopher-kings themselves, while the deprecated classes are treated as animalistic savages.

To return to a theme, also notice the duality in the very picture of boys we were talking about. The boy who accepts cowardice as part of morality remains an innocent child--not to be trusted with his own life, but harmless and deserving of lifelong care and protection. The boy who believes his own genes and nature and believes, with virtually every culture except for the postmodern West, that courage is an authentic moral virtue and that there are things he is morally obliged to die for, is the subhuman savage. Society agrees with the criminal on that, and it is no surprise that many boys choose to seek their birthright in destruction. They have internalized what society told them they really were.

There is no place for the boy who believes that courage is a virtue to be exercised on behalf of family and society--there is no third alternative. He may only choose which face of the Southern slave represents him.

The philosophical underpinnings are congruent with the fact that gun control is based on the same legal framework as segregation and that it applies the black codes to all citizens.

The troubling thing is that there are an awful lot of people who in fact prefer to be a happy child, freed of the responsibility of an adult, and vote to remove those awful duties.

7x57

Asphodel
07-25-2009, 1:26 AM
7X57,

Thats very well stated...........thank you........more later. If you'd not mind.

We may have a few fascinating subtle differences, but, as a generality, petty semantic ones, not 'structural', to to speak.

cheers

Carla