Skip to comments.Police: Teen who hit SUV with eggs slain
Posted on 12/03/2006 7:54:15 AM PST by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) A 14-year-old boy who was throwing eggs at cars along with two other teenagers was shot and killed by someone who had been in a sport-utility vehicle that was hit, police said.
Danny Crawford was killed by a gunshot wound to his upper body, Franklin County Coroner Brad Lewis said. He died in an alley on the city's west side early Saturday, authorities said.
The teens were throwing eggs at cars when an SUV that was struck chased them, Detective Tim Huston said. The vehicle stopped and several gunshots were fired, he said.
Police were looking for the shooter, who fled in the SUV, Sgt. Dana Norman said. The SUV believed to be involved was found a short time later near where Crawford died.
The other teens were not hurt, police said.
"You hate me. Got it.
Goes nicely with your bible spoutings higher up the thread.
Thanks. I'm sure the murdered boy is with God now. I wonder if the murderer will ever repent?
What if the SUV driver was only 16?
Where are we getting six shots from? The posted article says "shots were fired" and that the kid died "from A gunshot wound to the chest".
It wouldn't have mattered if it was a paintball or a water ballon. Still don't get that do you? HE initiated events.
Obtuse. He was murdered by a vicious killer who violated his right to life, w/o justification.
The kid attacked someone. His victim retaliated. Sorry you don't approve of victims fighting back against their attackers.
The death was a premeditated act of murder. Tossing the egg is irrelevant.
Premeditated? The guy whose SUV got egged was planning on going out an shooting some kid that night? Tossing eggs was the initiating act and it wasn't the shooter who started things rolling. Wrap your head around the concept of "actions have consequences".
Equal protection means the law applies to all, not that any rights violation justifies a vicious murder.
Ah... so you do set up a sliding scale for your morality. Stealing $5 is a "lesser" crime than stealing $5 million. You can be "just a little bit pregnant" in your world. A "little" rape isn't that bad...
And you call me sick.
is this the same incident that happened last summer, or is this a new one?
You really are some piece of work...
you'd think kids would learn..
Great story, I was a wild youth at times also, and the thing is there are people who feel it was justified to kill you on the spot for what you did. Obviously when you progressed to dropping cinder blocks from overpasses you must have been a terrible shot and didn't kill anyone. How anyone can justify murder for a kid throwing an egg is beyond me.
I don't approve of the SUV driver killing the kid. However, there are now probably more than a few teenagers in Columbus who will think twice before engaging in vandalism.
If you're going to shot an unarmed kid, and expect any sympathy around here, you better be a cop.
Nah, one of those "assault" SUVs.
I'm afraid that I have to agree with spunkets. Based on what I learned in law school (oh so long ago) and consistent with my B.A. degree in Criminal Justice and my experience as a law enforcement officer, the crime of which you speak...doesn't rise to the level of standard needed to precipitate a self defense shooting. There was no specific intent to cause "harm" (self evident by the circumstances) and there was no "attack." You can't attack an SUV! Had the egg struck the driver and it could be shown that the kid meant to strike the driver; meant to cause a catastrophic accident...there would be grounds for an arrest but no justification to shoot the kid in the aftermath of having a vehicle struck!
Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the point: You and your significant other are exiting the side door of the theater into an alley when you are accosted by a doper needing a fix who decides to mug you. He has a weapon. Fearing for your life you draw your own legally permitted concealed weapon for a presentation to the perp. The bad guy immediately breaks off his "attack" and sprints away. You are no longer in danger.
However you decide such clearly antisocial behavior should be discouraged so you pop a round right into the FLEEING Felon's back. He dies at the scene. YOU get arrested for FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Why? The instant the bad guy broke off his attack and fled and you fired your weapon, you switched roles. He became the victim and you became the aggressor. This is what happened in the incident we are discussing.
I hope if you ever walk a foot over someone's property line you get killed for it.
After all, it's not really an "assault" right?
How is this in any way hypocrtical? It followed the exact logical form you used. Sorry, but if you don't like the application, don't set your logic up that way.
The kid attacked no one. He threw an egg at a vehicle. The murderer was not justified in killing him, or using deadly force, or beating him in any way, shape, or form. The State of TX and all of the other 49 states agrees with me.
" Premeditated? The guy whose SUV got egged was planning on going out an shooting some kid that night?"
Yes, premeditated! All it takes is making the decision to shoot the kid w/o justificaiton. You need to learn that anger over egging a vehicle doesn't justify murder. The SUV driver had a murderous attitude before the incident and that's a very bad thing.
"Tossing eggs was the initiating act and it wasn't the shooter who started things rolling. Wrap your head around the concept of "actions have consequences"."
You need to get a grasp on reality. The initiating act was the development of the killer's murderous attitude. His propensity to commit murder over the slightest little thing, in violation of civilized society's sense of justice and laws is the real problem here. The murderer should get the death penalty.
Re: Equal protection means the law applies to all, not that any rights violation justifies a vicious murder. "Ah... so you do set up a sliding scale for your morality. Stealing $5 is a "lesser" crime than stealing $5 million. You can be "just a little bit pregnant" in your world. A "little" rape isn't that bad..."
Apparently you still don't know what equal protection under the law means. I told you what it means. It means the law applies to all! It does not mean, or have anything to do with, "all crimes are equal" as you say.
If the crime is simple theft, stealing $5 is petty theft. If the value is generally over $1K, the crime is grand theft. If the crime is armed robbery, the value of the property is irrelevant. The crime is still armed robbery. Revenge slayings with a deadly weapon are always a crime and that crime is first degree murder.
" And you call me sick."
I didn't, but since you mentioned sick... Your sense of justice is sick and so is your worldview.
"I'm fairly certain he didn't give two tin sh*ts about your God."
What's important is that my God cared about him.
Which is an ATTACK...
|1.||to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.|
|2.||to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.|
|3.||to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.|
|4.||to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.|
|5.||to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.|
|6.||to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.|
|7.||(of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.|
|8.||to make an attack; begin hostilities.|
|9.||the act of attacking; onslaught; assault.|
|10.||a military offensive against an enemy or enemy position.|
|11.||Pathology. seizure by disease or illness: an attack of indigestion.|
|12.||the beginning or initiating of any action; onset.|
|13.||an aggressive move in a performance or contest.|
|14.||the approach or manner of approach in beginning a musical phrase.
Since your dictionary appears to be broken, use the one above.
All it takes is making the decision to shoot the kid w/o justificaiton.
Being attacked is "without justification"? Thank God you aren't a lawyer...
What's important is that my God cared about him.
Not enough to keep him from initiating the events that ended his life apparently.
Then why the angry reply?
you excused this kids "innocent prank"
I hope you suffer the same kind of "prank" some day.
A direct endorsement of the initiation of force.
It followed the exact logical form you used.
When I say you should get the same consequences you favor for others if you initiate force, you say someone should initiate force against me. That's thug's logic.
The driver was not attacked. An egg was thrown at his vehicle and that act does not justify murder, the application of deadly force, or a beating.
Re: What's important is that my God cared about him.
" Not enough to keep him from initiating the events that ended his life apparently."
God does not control anyone and tossing an egg at a vehicle doesn't justify murder.
Which was what this kid did egging this guys SUV. Or did you miss that part?
Which would only be a true statement if the guy hadn't been DRIVING said vehicle at the time.
Look, I don't know if you like the idea of delinquents out running around causing mayhem or what, but don't expect everyone to get all choked up when some little criminal assumes room temperature over it.
Did the guy in the SUV over react? Yes. Should he be punished for it, yes. I've never contended otherwise. However some of you idiots coming in here defending this little cretin for his "innocent" crime are just plain stupid.
So the kid initiated force against the SUV driver, therefore some other kid should initiate more damaging force against me? Is that the reasoning?
I'm awaiting the "..I just watched Goodfellas/Casino and was thinking about what Joe Pesci must've been thinkin',..and alluva sudden dis egg splats all over my SUV..." legal defense.
One would think so... Actually, I don't remember ever having crossed swords with any of the others currently on the opposite side of this issue from me.
As to the issue, my point remains. If this kid hadn't been committing the crimes he initiated, he'd be alive today.
Okay, that's fair. The kid committed a crime, a misdemeanor, which he chose to commit. I'm not aware of any law that requires the death penalty for a misdemeanor. Neither does this rise to the level of a self defense shooting as I have exhautively noted in a previous post. So....Does the shooter go to jail if he is ever located?
As I've already stated, yes. He goes to jail. Manslaughter is still manslaughter. Being provoked into his actions should be considered during sentencing. This, however, does not rise to the level of pre-meditated murder as has been suggested.
You think this was a crime of passion? Or extreme negligence? Those are pretty much your only choices. Under the law, the very act of using a firearm is automatically use of deadly force. Even the mere display of a firearm is considered use of deadly force. This is why police officers are justified in shooting an armed suspect even though he may not have fired at them first.
There need be no specific period of time for premeditation to exist. It is sufficient that the egging had already occurred and the shooting was a response framed in the form of a punishment and that indeed is premeditated murder.
But perhaps I'm splitting hairs. After all THIS is a primo example of why lawyers make obscene amounts of moola! I know one thing, if this shooter got off on murder 1 in a criminal trial, he'd get screwed to the wall in the inevitable wrongful death lawsuit where the level of proof required to assign liability is significantly lower than the criminal court! Just ask OJ.
If it's only a car and it harms nothing, then why not let people throw eggs at your car all day. What kind of logic is that -- that there's no intent to harm? No intent to harm would NOT be throwing eggs in the first place.
How was this any other than? It wasn't like this guy was driving around after midnight thinking, "Dang. I hope some kid eggs my ride so I can cap his a$$..."
Until they find the shooter, we really won't know what motivated him. Judging from the time of night, it very well could have been alcohol related as well. I don't know, nor will I hazzard much more of a guess than I already have.
But that's assuming you don't crash your car, veer off the road, lose control, as a result of being hit by an exploding foreign object, FIRST.
If an egg hitting your car will cause you to run off of the road, you should surrender your driver's license and never again should you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
I can't imagine how you react to serious events that commonly occur when driving.
Maybe you need a push cart or a bicycle if you are so easily addled.
In my experience of being shot at, eggs striking an auto don't sound much like a bullet striking.
It's nothing new around here, but there sure are some hardened hearts on this forum.
I grew up in a nice neighborhood with good values, and yet my friends and I, stupid as we were, got in trouble a few times. One time it was throwing snowballs at cars, another time it was actually those little "bang snaps" that are really like firecrackers. I don't know why in the world we did it. That was so dangerous, we could have caused a really bad accident!
We didn't realize that until we got caught - arrested, essentially. All of us were 'good' kids (or we thought we were) - but the cops told us about people being killed when having an accident, and somehow in our stupid 11 or 12 year old minds we just couldn't make that obvious leap of logic until it was spelled out for us. We just were trying to "outcool" one another with rebellious behavior.
My parents were pretty enraged. I learned my lesson pretty quick. I guess I'm lucky I didn't learn it at the end of a gun. Given the attitude of a lot of posters on this forum, it seems that would have been an acceptable course of action. Yikes. Conservative values don't include killing kids under just about any circumstances, in my book.
But it's easier to try to defend or make excuses for something horrible than to feel sympathy for someone. Fair enough.
It if even clearer in full context. For brevity I abbreviated the passage, but thank you for posting the full. First Jesus asks "Why" they broke the commandment and then he answers it "because of their tradition". Then Jesus paraphrases OT Moses law to Honor parents and that the Pharisees WERE NOT doing as commanded in putting disobediant children to punishment (death). Then He explains in their hearts why they chose not to obey God's law (given to Moses). Because they hoped for future gains from their children so they can hypocritically give it to God.
Now lets see what the Bible has to say about doing evil that it might bring forth good in the future (like voting for a bad politician hoping it will help the party later on)...Romans 3:8 (King James Version)
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Then later in the Matthew 15 passage... Jesus futher chastises the Hypocrites for not following Moses's (God's) law and instead choosing to follow "man's law".
It can't be more crystal clear unless you have a plank in your eye.
Notice Jesus is not addressing the death penalty at all. What He is addressing is the fact that the Pharisees and teachers of the law have demanded that a father(or mother), not be honored. They said God should be honored and that's all He mentioned. The death penalty was not addressed and that was done on purpose.
Jesus is clearly addressing the fact that these people have stopped obeying Moses (God's) laws. They have twisted things to try and look good, but when you add to the truth you actually are subtracting from it and God was NOT pleased because they had decided to try to bend the law for their own purpose. Thus the law untruthful to it's source and they invented a "man's law". Jesus was not ashamed one bit that the OT law was still in effect and required the life of unruley children.
Jesus cared for us, he knew that allowing children to dishonor their parents would cause the troubles like we have read in this tragic story (not only of the killed but the killer as well).
John 8:1-11 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Does the story of the woman caught in adultery, forgiven and released (John 8:3-11) negate the death penalty?
God Forgave Adulterers Before
Gomer was an adulteress yet God forgave her (Hos. 3:1). Still, He demanded that His people obey His law (Hos. 4:6).
King David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11). Yet God forgave him (Psalm 32:1-5).
It was a conscious decision on God's part to not execute David. As Nathan said to David:
* "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However... by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme..." 2 Sam. 12:13
Still, God's law remained in effect (Ps. 1:2; 19:7; 78:1, 5-8; 89:30-32; 119).
God forgave the New Testament adulterer just as He forgave Old Testament adulterers, in neither instance revoking His law. God has all authority to forgive the criminal and disregard temporal punishment. Contrariwise, Men must obey God and cannot ignore punishment.
The Pharisees Wanted to Trap Christ
The Pharisees wanted to accuse Jesus of rebelling against the Roman Empire:
* This [the Pharisees] said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. John 8:6
Rome had revoked the Jews' authority to put a criminal to death (John 18:31). A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His "hour had come." Jesus solved this problem stating, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" (John 8:7). Christ often frustrated the Pharisees giving clever answers that thwarted their wicked intentions (Mat. 22:15-22; 21:21-27; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26).
All the world is under the law:
* Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God... Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Rom. 3:19, 31
* Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal. 3:24-25
Christians who are untutored in the evangelistic role of the law oppose the foundation of the criminal code upon God's law.
When He taught men to pray, He said in Matt 6:12 "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
Emphasis above is mine.
You can forgive a debt owed to you, but not one owed to your neighbor. If your friend owes you $100 dollars, you can cancel that debt if you like; however, if your friend owes me $100, you have no such authority to cancel that debt. You can forgive a sin against you, but not a sin against your neighbor. Only God has authority to forgive a murderer/sinner and even He will not forgive the unrepentant murderer/sinner.
Jesus forgave sins and the scribes reasoned in their hearts, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7). Thus Jesus realized that men would want evidence for His claim to be able to forgive sins:
* "But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" - He said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, arise..." Luke 5:24; Mark 2:10-11
So parents of a murder victim should forgive to the extent that they have been hurt, which requires a tremendous amount of forgiveness to cover a tremendous amount of hurt. In America, sadly, their sorrow is agitated and increased by a government that mocks their grief through mercy to the murderer. How does a mother's broken heart heal when the wound is reopened each time her daughter's murderer is up for appeal, or sues the jail, or gets a photo in the newspaper.
not the hardness of heart found in the Mosaic law.
The only hardness has been caused by NOT following the Mosaic law and instead following "man's laws". We today reap that sorrow in buckets like this article details.
In conclusion (and due lack of time) ... I will leave ya with one more quote for you to attempt to twist.
The Apostle John also taught that you reap what you sow:
* ...he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. Rev. 13:10
Sorry about the delay in responding, I work.
Don't know that I have ever been shot at, but I promise ya, I heard that egg break my windshield over a thumping sterio system (yeah, I am partial deaf now due it).
God cares about Bin Ladin too, but you will not get far on a FR thread argueing against him getting his neck streached.
Nothing personal. The main topic in the story is the boy's murder. My only reason for posting here is, because I noted many folks were comfortable with the boy's murder, because he'd been engaging in a childhood prank. The murderer's attitude and inclination to kill was overlooked. The comments were that it was no big deal, dismissed it as an understandable consequence and pointed out their perception of how the community benefited from the murder.
Not many here were disturbed by the murderous attitude of the driver. I've seen it countless times in real life. Last shooting I saw like this, is when a baby was shot and killed in his car seat, because the driver of the family car "cut the shooter off" on the interstate. The shooter was a middle aged, well off white guy. You're right in your other post. This story is a grabbers wet dream.
Last time I met the attitude was when I interviened to protect a groundskeeper from being beaten to death with a pipe, because his lawnmower kicked up a rock that hit the electrical contractor's Mercedes.
So a kid tossing eggs is equivalent to an adult that plots and perpetrates mass murder? Just asking, because your mention and composition implies the 2 are of roughly equal stature.
In what context are you asking? God's or ours? Sin is sin pretty much to God, though he does give degrees of punishment in degrees also, all sin (unforgiven) is punishment for hell.
There are six things "the Lord hates," including "a heart that devises wicked plans a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Prov. 6:16-19). And God reminds us "All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more" (Ho 9:13). As Moses wrote of God, "if you do not obey Me... My soul shall abhor you" (Lev. 26:27-30).
Now negating the fact that I was responding to your statement of --- "What's important is that my God cared about him." Thus my answer shows only the sarcasm of your own post, either you admit that God loves Bin or your point is mute.
I will leave the equating up to you to try to spin, but for the record, my post will prove time over time, that I do not defend the killer of the 14y/o in any of my posts. I pointed out time after time, we are to "give place to wrath" and that place is "government authorities".
Anyone that has followed my posts will see that I am just saying this 14y/o is not as innocent as you like to portray him. Probable because he disobeyed his parent(s)/guardian, he brought a death penalty into fruition. He wasn't exactly sowing seeds of pacifism was he ? , just as the shooter has done to himself.
I am not so sure... I can hope as only you can.
The topic was only about honoring parents, which the Pharisees changed to honoring God. Note the Pharisees were amongst those that were going to stone the adulteress. That means the Pharisees had no problem with the death penalty, God did. Mention of the death penalty is irrelevant there.
" Then later in the Matthew 15 passage... Jesus futher chastises the Hypocrites for not following Moses's (God's) law and instead choosing to follow "man's law". It can't be more crystal clear unless you have a plank in your eye."
Where did the divorce law come from? It was said to be from God. Did God change his mind?
Re: If the death penalty for adultery is God's law and God's law can't be broken, why did Jesus save the adulteress?
"Rome had revoked the Jews' authority to put a criminal to death (John 18:31). A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His "hour had come.""
I see... God was in a bind, so He gave them some BS to gain some more time. Just this once though. That's, because He wanted to let His followers know it was OK to BS if it's for the cause. OK, got it.
" God Forgave Adulterers Before"
Looks arbitrary to me. God's not arbitrary. I think men are arbitrary in what they say and cause God to look that way too. God taught men to forgive as He had done. He came here to do just that. You failed to address the washing of the feet at the last supper. That was one of His final lessons.
" King David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11). Yet God forgave him (Psalm 32:1-5)."
Folks liked him, otherwise they'd have punished him too.
Re: The Lord's prayer. " You can forgive a debt owed to you, but not one owed to your neighbor.
The death penalty is imposed by the State. It applies to crimes against state law. That means Christians are not to support revenge in law, only rights protection and it appears deterence justifies punishment for that purpose. Anyone who believes in God would be satisfied with what He said about such things as forgiveness and "vengeance is mine". The others have their own interests.
"Only God has authority to forgive a murderer/sinner"
No. As I pointed out in the Lord's prayer and in the washing of the feet. Now from Matt 18...
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
" The Apostle John also taught that you reap what you sow: * ...he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. Rev. 13:10
He's talking about hardness of heart.
I'm speculating here, but I'm getting the sneaky feeling that the owner of the SUV was a homeboy, and egging his ride constituted a "diss," which is a capital crime in the urban jungle.
In the Indiana case, the driver (of the pickup truck that was egged) ... was a white male.
I'm speculating that the same is true here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.