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.
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.
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.