On Friday, ABC's 20/20 featured a story about a Long Island man, John White, who was put on trial for shooting a teen, Dano Cicciaro, at the end of his driveway after Cicciaro and some friends showed up at 11:00 PM during a dispute with White's son Aaron. While the story was mostly balanced in noting the strengths and weaknesses in each side's case, at one point, Elizabeth Vargas oddly asked White why he didn't remove the bullets from his gun before confronting the group of five hostile teens: "So you grabbed it hoping to scare the boys? ... So why not take the bullets out?"
More details of the case can be found here. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday April 4 20/20 on ABC:
ELIZABETH VARGAS: It was just after 11:10 PM, August 9, 2006. Dano Cicciaro and four of his friends pulled up outside the home of John White. According to the White family, this is what it looked like to them: bright lights shining up their driveway and several angry young men shouting outside.
SONIA WHITE, MOTHER OF AARON WHITE: I was paralyzed with fear. I never felt like that in my life before.
JOHN WHITE, FATHER OF AARON WHITE: It reminded me of a lynch mob. That's how they, that's how they acted, calling for my son.
VARGAS: There would be many disagreements about what happened that night. What is undisputed is that just before he left the garage, John White made a fateful decision. He picked up a loaded .32-caliber pistol that had been handed down to him by his grandfather.
VARGAS: When you walked outside with that gun, were you planning to use it?
JOHN WHITE: No. I wanted to repel them. I wanted them to go away.
VARGAS: So you grabbed it hoping to scare the boys?
JOHN WHITE: That's all.
VARGAS: So why not take the bullets out?
JOHN WHITE: Because it was no time. They were coming up the driveway.
Comments Policy
So why not take the bullets
April 10, 2008 - 00:59 ET by PeskyDaneSo why not take the bullets out?
OK, now you're trying to sound stupid.
These are the same people
April 10, 2008 - 10:46 ET by motherbeltThese are the same people who wonder why the police had to kill the guy....why didn't they just shoot him in the leg, or shoot the gun out of his hand (like they do in the movies)?
If he had grabbed a knife
April 10, 2008 - 10:53 ET by BuxomAnnieMcGreggorIf he had grabbed a knife to scare them, I would bet the baby's milk money Vargas would have asked him why he didn't "dull it up" before flashing it in front of them.
Life can be a real b*tch... so why vote for one?
worthless hunk of metal
April 11, 2008 - 00:17 ET by m1xramlol, guns don't work without bullets. Wow, they don't even know that much.
The Interview Continued:
April 10, 2008 - 01:04 ET by on-the-rocksVARGAS: Why didn't you take the bullets out and throw them at the boys? That might have scared them away.
Bullet-less gun
April 10, 2008 - 01:07 ET by KC MulvilleWhat an appropriate metaphor for the reporter covering this story!
Are you sure this is not a
April 10, 2008 - 01:21 ET by Gary P JacksonAre you sure this is not a Daily Show skit?
This woman is stupid to the core!
empty gun
April 11, 2008 - 00:22 ET by m1xramHow about an SNL skit WITH an empty gun? We know how that would turn out.
Bear Hunting
April 10, 2008 - 01:54 ET by ScrapironI would rather go bear hunting with a switch than to pull out an empty gun. Like my daddy said, if you pull it out, intend to use it, if you cock it shoot, as soon as it hits full cock, whoever/whatever you went after. I live by that rule.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
The rule is "Don't ever draw
April 10, 2008 - 02:09 ET by NL207The rule is "Don't ever draw a gun unless you plan to use it."
Lessons from grandpa
April 10, 2008 - 07:34 ET by KC BeachI was taght if you are fool enough to pull a gun you better be smart enough to use it.
It's too bad Elizabeth's
April 10, 2008 - 02:13 ET by DJEddleIt's too bad Elizabeth's father didn't have an empty gun. Then we wouldn't have to hear such ridiculous questions.
Take the bullets out? That's usually what I do when I grab my gun. That way, I don't accidentally defend myself or a loved one.
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
Metaphor
April 10, 2008 - 16:06 ET by ForeverOnTheRight"It's too bad Elizabeth's father didn't have an empty gun." I am assuming that this was a metaphor. Becuase if his "gun" was empty, we would not have this empty headed Elizabeth. :-)
"Nip It In the BUD!"
April 10, 2008 - 03:45 ET by Del DolemonteBarney Fife: Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud.
Andy Taylor: I'm going to have a talk with them. What else do you want me to do?
Barney Fife: Well, don't just mollycoddle them.
Andy Taylor: I won't.
Barney Fife: Nip it. You go read any book you can on the subject of child discipline and you'll find every one of them is in favor of bud-nipping.
Thanks,Del!
April 10, 2008 - 06:24 ET by sentforth5I LOVED that episode!! I even got me a B. Fife tee shirt and at the bottom it says "Nip It!"
I s'pose if it were a knife rather than a gun, she'd have asked, "why didn't you throw the knife down and wave the sheath at 'em?"
What a dope.
"Now BARN!!!"
April 10, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Del DolemonteAnd remember, Bernard Fife only got to have one bullet, and had to keep it in his shirt pocket. He was only allowed to insert it into his gun on "special occasions".
Some people get all emotional about not wanting to be on camera
April 10, 2008 - 05:11 ET by sarcasmoWhy don't you always remove the film for them?? They won't know, so the camera will still have the same effect on the folks who don't wish to be "shot" on videotape, it'll just be useless for you.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
If these "journalists" had
April 10, 2008 - 07:51 ET by KillgraveIf these "journalists" had the integrity to keep their damned mouths shut when they don't understand a given subject, there would be nothing but dead air.
I'm surprised that Vargas didn't ask the guy why he didn't shoot a couple rounds into the air, or trick-shot any weapons out of the kids' hands like Wyatt Earp. 'cause, you know, that is what happens in T.V. shows and movies.
And I have to comment that I have no use for this guy. What happend, in reality, is that he acted like a man and protected his family and property from a bunch of scumbags. But here he is coming across as being a "victim" and and idiot, desperate to win over the pity of a liberal, by dragging out the "lynch" comment. And he even indicates that he would've unloaded his weapon if he "had time", which goes against the first thing you learn in gun defense (if this moron even took a course). YOU. DON'T. BRANDISH. YOUR. WEAPON... YOU. USE. IT.
Guess what? This dumbass just opened himself up for a lawsuit. The punks can get him for gross negligence. He just confessed (on tape) that he "didn't mean to" shoot them. Therefor, the injury was the result of negligence.
Would This Be A Bad Time
April 10, 2008 - 08:01 ET by PamTo tell all of you about a new company I am starting? I am going to sell people the weapons/objects, that they wish to have and hand to an attacker..If you are going to give criminals more rights than vctims, why not let the victim decide what they are going to be attacked by!
I see a future with my company!
Not a bad idea
April 10, 2008 - 08:46 ET by HypocriteHaterJust set up shop in D.C. or any college campus where all the sitting ducks are waiting in their gun free zones.
I was following this story
April 10, 2008 - 08:14 ET by Jack BauerI was following this story a few months back in the New York Daily News where I had the misfortune to read the emailed comments section.
They featured some of the most disgustingly racist rants I've ever read in a so-called responsible newspaper.
They were from what seemed to be mainly white Italian-Americans. I find them as offensive as the Rev. Wright and his "church."
The facts as I see them are this black family lives in an area that is predominently white (a bit like the Reverend Wright) and they have been subjected to threats and intimidation for a long time.
Now it wasn't so long ago that a man in Texas shot dead two burglars who had just B&E'd his neighbors home, and were fleeing the scene.
They were black and he was white. People have a right to defend themselves, their families, their property and their neigbors. Equal justice for all.
Unfortunately John White doesn't seem to have decent neighbors.
I agree, however, I find it
April 10, 2008 - 10:24 ET by amberI agree, however, I find it odd he met them outside. He could have locked his family in the house, with his loaded gun, and waited for police. If they got in his house then he could have shot and killed them all. If they drove up and he was outside already and he had no way to get inside, then shoot them. They were on his property, he repeatedly asked them to leave and they refused. I feel bad for the guy. he made a bad choice, he should have stayed in his house. I feel bad for the kid's parents. Their son made a bad choice, he should have spoken to an adult and convinced the girl to speak out. I wonder about the girl. Was she trying to cause trouble? She knew the guy for a couple of years after that, her brother invited him over to his house. Something is not right.
Are you a complete
April 10, 2008 - 21:31 ET by NL207Are you a complete half-wit? You think these 5 young toughs who were there at White's property for the explicit purpose of doing bodily harm to Aaron White were going to be stopped by a locked door?
What does it take to open your eyes? How would you respond to this assault on the White's property, persons and even home if these hoods had hung a noose or two off their vehicle or in a tree out front? Do they need to be wearing white hoods before you will respond favorably to self defence? If any of this would have changed your opinion then I think you need to do some serious soul searching about your own prejudices.
What would YOU do if 5 thugs showed up at your place and threatened to kick your ass?
exactly right
April 10, 2008 - 23:24 ET by Wesenamber is exactly right. Deadly force is deadly force and is a last resort. 5 thugs at my place and I'm inside calling the police. If they get in or cut off an escape then it is my duty to protect myself. I was interested to see the Parents rants after the trial... the kid was acting exactly the same way I'd bet. Not a good situation to put yourself in.
Look, I cary a pistol and I
April 11, 2008 - 09:45 ET by amberLook, I cary a pistol and I take it seriously. I do not place myself in dangerous situations. I do not go to bars at night, I do not go down dark streets, I do not tell my children to stand next to me when 5 angry teenagers are comming to kill me and my family, I do not defend anyone except for my family and only from bodily harm. I am ready to shoot, but before that happens you can be darn sure there were other options available. Obviously I am right, the man is in prison and his family is now without his protection. He was stupid, he made a very bad judgment call.
You are an arrogant prick to call me racist for saying he should have been waiting inside the safety of his home to kill the kid, not outside. You are assuming way too much about me, namely the color of my skin and that of my family members and I will tell you now, you made the wrong assumption you dumb ass. Go search your own soul.
I already told you what I would do. I would wait inside, armed and ready to shoot any one who burst through my door. They had 2 guns and one was a shot gun, I would have felt pretty safe.
So what planet does Vargas...
April 10, 2008 - 09:01 ET by ThalpySo what planet does Vargas live on?
Please....help this poor brainless airhead out!
April 10, 2008 - 09:42 ET by political mavenHand her a fifth of bourbon, & a semi-auto with one bullet so she can do the honorable thing
Ms. Vargus is confused
April 10, 2008 - 09:44 ET by Ruths husband BenMs. Vargus is confused about the protocol here. When facing a gang of young thugs, one should unload his (or her) weapon through the barrel. Mr. White did it right.
“There’s nobody (white) on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any (other) ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
(parentheticals added for clarity)
Unload gun
April 10, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Long Island PeteAs I have said to my wife, an unloaded gun is nothing more than a paperweight.
Elizabeth Vargas apparently removes her brain before interviews
April 10, 2008 - 10:11 ET by c5thenI guess that way it prevents her from being confused by what actually comes out of her mouth.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I'm all for it. Anytime
April 10, 2008 - 10:27 ET by mattmI'm all for it. Anytime there's an angry mob, let's send in a bunch of pacifists and appeasers to "negotiate" with them...
Any time you feel the need
April 10, 2008 - 11:49 ET by bassndudeAny time you feel the need to take up arms to defend yourself, your family, your home or all the above, the last thing you want is an unloaded firearm. When push comes to shove, an unloaded gun is worthless. If I pick up a gun, it is loaded and I intend to use it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
An unloaded weapon is more than worthless
April 10, 2008 - 13:49 ET by kenro85It's an invitation to get shot. What's he supposed to do, run up yelling "My guns unloaded, it's just to scare you. So don't shoot me first."?
Rule number one. If you are going to threaten force, be prepared to use it, or you will have it used on you. A weapon is a threat of force, so you had better be prepared to use it. This, by the way, is what many liberals just don't understand. They think just standing up to a bully is enough. But it isn't, at least, not the first time. Once you have a reputation as being capable of taking down the bully, it's enough. But you have take down a couple first. And you cannot then show weakness, or you are back to square one.
an unloaded head...
April 10, 2008 - 12:45 ET by wizardjrDoes Vargas remove her brain before approaching a keyboard or TV camera? One has to be careful that one's mouth doesn't go off accidentally.
An empty gun is an empty threat
April 10, 2008 - 14:10 ET by CobraMan"So why not take the bullets out?"
Because an empty gun is useless as a weapon against “several angry young men,“ ya twit! It renders the gun inoperable. It's equivalent to draining the gas out of your car before driving to the local Code Pink military protest. I doubt that you'll be promoting THAT idea real soon.
ROFLMAO- GREAT ONE COBRA!
April 10, 2008 - 14:21 ET by political maventhought mine was good, but you win!
He should have said "Are
April 10, 2008 - 16:35 ET by motherbeltHe should have said "Are you serious?????"
I love to see liberals get slapped upside the head with something like that, and then have to defend their stupid remarks.
ready
April 10, 2008 - 16:14 ET by goldbough"So why not take the bullets out?"
Maybe so in case he did need to use it, it would be ready. He's certainly not going to ask the thugs to wait while he goes and gets the bullets.
And leave the casing, primer and powder in?
April 10, 2008 - 16:20 ET by 911isbusyVargas: "So you grabbed it hoping to scare the boys? ... So why not take the bullets out?"
John White: "'cause then all the powder would fall out and I'd have to clean the dang thing again!"
Those who have not swords can still die upon them.
Oh Vargas would make Sarah
April 10, 2008 - 16:23 ET by bigtimerOh Vargas would make Sarah Brady proud....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
...and she says that with
April 10, 2008 - 18:08 ET by msh1973...and she says that with so much conviction. It sounds like she took her brain out and left it at home.
Sounds like bad judgement on
April 10, 2008 - 20:08 ET by balboaSounds like bad judgement on the guy's part for going outside with the gun. Tragic situation.
But, yeah, I doubt he had time to think about, "Hey, I'll unload the gun first."
It's not his fault
April 10, 2008 - 20:47 ET by CobraManSounds more like bad judgment by the young men who decided to trepass on someone's property while acting in a threatening manner. I don't lay fault at the feet of the property owner who was only trying to protect his home and family. I lay blame solely at the feet of those who were threatening this man and his family.
Remember, they weren't just some guys who mistakenly walked up this guy's driveway, the went there purposely to confront the man's son, They were screaming and yelling and acting in a threatening manor as they ADVANCED on the man while on his property. I have no doubt that these young men meant to inflict physical harm to this man’s son and anyone else who stood in their way. That makes them the aggressors, and that makes them the cause. Therefore, it’s entirely their fault and not his.
Sure. But I don't think
April 10, 2008 - 20:55 ET by balboaSure. But I don't think anyone deserved to die.
Sure, but...
April 10, 2008 - 21:08 ET by CobraManSure, no one deserved to die. But no one deserved to be physically threatened on their own property either.
This whole incident wouldn't have occurred if the young men in question would have just stayed away and not instigated the whole unfortunate chain of events. It was the young men who caused this death by acting in a threatening manner, not the man, not his son, and not the gun.
So why is Mr. White the one
April 10, 2008 - 21:10 ET by balboaSo why is Mr. White the one going to jail?
Defending yourself is a crime in NY
April 10, 2008 - 21:20 ET by CobraManBecause the idiot jury doesn't believe that anyone is allowed to use deadly force to defend his or her life and property.
Thankfully, there is an appeal process available to him, so this case is far from over. I have no doubt that his case will be dismissed on appeal.
Tell me, why do you feel that this man is at fault? Don't you believe that people have a right to defend their life and property? Do you feel it's better for a member of your family face harm by others, and possibly be killed in the process, than to use force, even deadly force, to protect that family member?
That should be "conviction"
April 10, 2008 - 21:30 ET by CobraManOops, that should be "his conviction" and not "his case." My bad!
Well, let me back up here.
April 10, 2008 - 21:51 ET by balboaWell, let me back up here. It's hard to tell if his life or his family's was really in jeopardy or if he just panicked. IF their lives were truly at risk, THEN he's justified. But a trial decided otherwise, at least so far. So based on that, I'd say killing someone was not called for.
Now, IF it's true that the gun went off accidentally, then it's either a tragic accident or involuntary manslaughter...I think.
It's HARD TO TELL?
April 10, 2008 - 22:05 ET by CobraManIt's “hard to tell?” Just what is so "hard to tell" about what happened?
Look at the facts and ignore the hype. These guys weren't just hanging out; they went looking for trouble and found it, big time. The young men in question drove up in a car, got out into the street, started screaming and yelling and threatening this man's son, then proceeded to trespass on this man's property while continuing to act in a threatening manner. That's a clear indication that this wasn't simply a case of harmless childhood mischief that went horribly awry. It is an obvious case of a clear and present danger to this man's son and others. Young men of that age don't scream and yell and threaten people as a joke, they actually mean business and will, if allowed, cause real physical harm to the object of their anger. Anyone over the age of 10 can attest to that!
I'm sorry, were you there?
April 10, 2008 - 22:11 ET by balboaI'm sorry, were you there? Were you at the trial? No?
Huh...
The facts are available to everyone, Huh
April 10, 2008 - 22:36 ET by CobraManDon't hide behind a jury decision simply because you agree with it and then try claim that others can‘t make determinations of guilt and innocence simply because they weren't seated in a jury box. The "facts," as in evidence and testimonies, are available to everyone, not just the jury. That’s why public trials are called PUBLIC. Huh...
When it comes to determinations of right and wrong, do you always rely only on what a jury decides knowing that juries have made grievous errors in the past and have sent many an innocent person to prison? It this reason that the convicted are allowed to file an appeal. This jury made a grievous error by deciding that this man was wrong to defend his son. I hope that his conviction is tossed out and that he’s finally allowed to live his life without being labeled a killer.
All I'm saying is that it's
April 10, 2008 - 22:39 ET by balboaAll I'm saying is that it's hard to tell how hostile the boys were, how angry, how aggressive, without having been there, or without having heard some kind of testimony at the trial. That's why I said "Let me back up." I can make a lot of assumptions about the mood of the situation based on the article, but without having been there, it's hard to truly judge.
All you're saying
April 10, 2008 - 22:52 ET by BlondeIs all you ever say....
jee, I have a limp one....I don't know, um, gee, I just am not sure whether I should or should not take a stand....um, maybe there could have been a better way out of this unfortunate situation.
But anyway, it's kind of unfortunate that someone had to take some kind of stance that I really don't understand.
So, I guess I'll just kind of go down the other side of the road because that's kind of what I do to justify my existence here.
Like that. And while I'm at it, I'll kind of, um, straddle this fence, because, you know, I couldn't possibly take a stand, one way or the other.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Yes, it's called "rational
April 10, 2008 - 23:05 ET by balboaYes, it's called "rational thought."
Uh, I'll do the
April 10, 2008 - 23:07 ET by RESTLESS 1Uh, I'll do the honors.
Blonde 1
Balboa 0
Assume all you want.
April 10, 2008 - 23:03 ET by CobraManYou can assume all you want, but I must point out that you quoted the article when making a determination as to where the son was when this all started. If that article is sufficient to provide you with enough information to determine where the son was as a way to refute my "hypothetical situation" as inappropriate, why do you then discount other statements in the article that displays just how aggressive them men were acting during the incident?
The fact that the men were on the property late at night is evidence enough that they weren't just messing around and were being highly aggressive. It’s obvious that the men didn't go there to party; they went there to rumble. You don't go into someone's property at night unless you want to be there. You don’t yell and scream at people unless you want someone to feel fear and intimidation as to their safety and the safety of others. These men wanted to cause trouble and they got more than the bargained for. It’s a shame that they didn't take the time to consider the consequences of their actions prior to this incident and that it resulted in in someone's death. That’s their fault, and only their fault.
So, shoot 'em all and let
April 10, 2008 - 23:07 ET by balboaSo, shoot 'em all and let God sort them out? Really?
Bal, I think you finally got
April 10, 2008 - 23:09 ET by RESTLESS 1Bal, I think you finally got it. This would be a no brainer in Texas. The castle doctrine law is a bitch, for criminals.
That's sad.
April 10, 2008 - 23:10 ET by balboaThat's sad.
Yup, sad for the criminals.
April 10, 2008 - 23:13 ET by RESTLESS 1Yup, sad for the criminals.
It's sad, alright.
April 10, 2008 - 23:30 ET by CobraManIt's sad that you keep ignoring the fact that the young men INSTIGATED this by traveling to the man’s house and that it’s their actions that led to the death of one of them. It's entirely their fault, but you'll never accept that. Instead of blaming the one’s who started it, you blame the one who stopped it. Sad, truly sad.
C Man, did you not read the
April 10, 2008 - 23:39 ET by balboaC Man, did you not read the part where I said that the boys share blame for going to the house? Mr. White could've stopped the situation by also staying in his house and calling the police.
But I'm not sure that killing someone was justified based on this article.
Bal
April 10, 2008 - 23:49 ET by RESTLESS 1You still don't get it. The boys do NOT share blame in this. They OWN ALL OF IT.
You're right. I don't get
April 10, 2008 - 23:56 ET by balboaYou're right. I don't get it. This was an misunderstanding that spiraled out of control. The boys made a mistake by going over to the White's house to angrily and aggressively confront the son. That doesn't sound like something worth shooting someone over.
Seems pretty clear to me. Oh
April 11, 2008 - 00:01 ET by RESTLESS 1Seems pretty clear to me. Oh well, I give up.
Not all, just the dangerous one
April 10, 2008 - 23:17 ET by CobraManNot all, just the ones who are threatening you and your family with bodily harm. You know, like the guys who come on to your property late at night and threaten you and your family. Everyone else would be asleep and they wouldn’t be a threat me, so why would I shoot them?
Conversely, you could hide under the bed and hope that the police show up before a group of angry, aggressive men break into your house and kill you all. But, hey, the choice is yours.
You're assuming that
April 10, 2008 - 23:24 ET by balboaYou're assuming that ultimately what these guys wanted to do was break into the house and kill this entire family. If they had broken into his home? Sure, shoot away. I have no problem with that. I'm not exonerating the kids. I'm saying tragedy might have been averted if the man had stayed inside and waited for the police.
Ah!!! There lies the
April 10, 2008 - 23:38 ET by RESTLESS 1Ah!!! There lies the difference. I don't see it as a tragedy when a violent criminal, tresspassing on someone else's property gets what's coming to them. This in not a tragedy. This is a story with a happy ending, no INNOCENT PEOPLE were hurt.
Violent criminal? Where?
April 10, 2008 - 23:41 ET by balboaViolent criminal? Where? What do you base that on?
Yep Bal, I lost my head for
April 10, 2008 - 23:46 ET by RESTLESS 1Yep Bal, I lost my head for a second. Those guys were just there for tea and crumpets. Do you live in the real world????
You said "violent criminal."
April 10, 2008 - 23:51 ET by balboaYou said "violent criminal." I don't see anything in the article that backs that up.
Don't know what you call
April 10, 2008 - 23:57 ET by RESTLESS 1Don't know what you call them, but in my book, people tresspassing on private property, displaying agressive, threatening, and not backing away, intend to do violence, making them violent criminals. Maybe not the legal definition, but I doubt Mr. White had time to get a lawyer on the phone.
You're just making more
April 11, 2008 - 00:02 ET by balboaYou're just making more assumptions. "Intend to do violence." Now you know intentions? You can tell? I can't. By your standards, anyone who gets in a heated argument is violent, which makes half of major league baseball's managers violent. Better shoot 'em!
Baseball managers aren't
April 11, 2008 - 00:08 ET by RESTLESS 1Baseball managers aren't tresspassing on private property, outnumbering the object of their anger 5 to 1. Apples to oranges.
What do you call them?
April 10, 2008 - 23:52 ET by CobraManBal, these young men violated property rights by trespassing on someone's private property. That's a crime. They also were threatening people with bodily harm. That's also a crime. Since committing violence by harming others is, by definition, a violent act and displaying high aggression is a prelude to violence acts; it is reasonable to call these young men violent criminals who were prevented from committing a violent act.
I suppose that, in your mind, these men were just innocent victims because they never got the change to act out their aggressive behavior and were stopped before they could harm someone. It that what you believe?
How many times do I have to
April 10, 2008 - 23:59 ET by balboaHow many times do I have to say that the boys aren't innocent in this? Have you read the previous 9 thousand times I've written it?
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE OVER THERE. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE WALKED UP THE DRIVEWAY AND CONFRONTED THE DAD.
Violent criminals? Nope.
Ok, then what do you think
April 11, 2008 - 00:06 ET by RESTLESS 1Ok, then what do you think should have happened to the kids, assuming noone was shot? What should happen if they came back again? What would you say to the son and wife if Mr. White played by your rules and that family suffered a tremendous loss? It seems you would have everyone wait to act until it is too late.
As I said, numerous times,
April 11, 2008 - 00:16 ET by balboaAs I said, numerous times, he should have gone into his house. If the kids came broke in, fire away. That's not too late. If the kids attacked his son, fire away.
If no one had been shot, the cops still should have been called to get to the bottom of this whole thing, to try and settle the dispute. Sounds like a misunderstanding that perhaps could've been cleared up.
Whatever Bal. I wouldn't
April 11, 2008 - 00:22 ET by RESTLESS 1Whatever Bal. I wouldn't take the chance of them getting in my house. They could get the gun and shoot me or my family. They could have bum rushed the guy and then what? You seem to forget that it was 5 on 2 if you count the son. You may take those chances, but I would not.
You have a MUCH better
April 11, 2008 - 00:31 ET by balboaYou have a MUCH better chance of avoiding conflict by staying inside your house. Period. They have a much better chance of rushing you and getting the gun outside, too.
The police said the boy was
April 11, 2008 - 10:01 ET by amberThe police said the boy was not shot on their property. He was either in the street or in the easement. So there goes your tresspassing theory.
"If Dano and his friends were heading up the driveway, they moved back in a hurry — when police photographed the crime scene early the next morning the blood stains indicated that Dano was nowhere near the house when he was shot," Chalifoux said. "According to the physical evidence, Daniel Cicciaro, at the time he was shot, was either in the street or at most twelve to eighteen inches onto the apron of the defendant's driveway."
I'm not assuming anything.
April 10, 2008 - 23:40 ET by CobraManI'm not assuming anything. Assumptions like that are too risky.
I can't take the risk that a group of aggressive men that advance on my property and threaten my family are going to be satisfied with just posturing their anger outside and that they won't continue their aggressive actions and enter my house in an attempt hurt or kill someone.
You're the one who's assuming that the men in question weren’t going to harm someone despite the blatant aggression they were showing an the complete lack of property rights they displayed by entering this man's property late at night without permission. In a world where man kills man out of pure anger and where robberies and murders occur on a daily bases, that's a very foolish assumption to make on your part.
No, I'm saying that based on
April 10, 2008 - 23:45 ET by balboaNo, I'm saying that based on the info I have, I don't know. Maybe he was justified in shooting the kid.
But if he had stayed inside, he might not have had to make that decision.
tragedy might have been averted?
April 10, 2008 - 23:44 ET by CobraManBal, tragedy would have been averted altogether had the kids just stayed away from this man's home and family that night. Once again, you place the blame on the victim of human aggression and not on the aggressors themselves.
You are correct. If the kids
April 10, 2008 - 23:49 ET by balboaYou are correct. If the kids had not come to the house, no one would have been shot. As I said, the kids aren't completely innocent.
That's right, they're not innocent.
April 11, 2008 - 00:09 ET by CobraManThat's right, they're not innocent. HE'S the innocent one here and he's being falsely defamed as a criminal.
Up until this point I have only heard you make claims as to how it's all the fault of the man and that he, and only he, could have prevented tragedy simply by staying in the house and not confront people who were threatening his son and invading his property. You've made him out as the bad guy when he's the true victim here.
Thanks to the criminal actions of a group of young men, this man and his family now have to live with the knowledge that he killed someone and that, despite being threatened by these young men and despite having his property invaded that night, a jury has determine that he's a criminal and the others are the actual victims in this case. Apperently you agree with the jury. He's guilty and they're not. Just what kind of message does that send to other young men who make think about threatening innocent people and invading their property?
The message is: defend your life and property from the criminal behavior of others and YOU’RE the criminal, not them.
I don't think he's the bad
April 11, 2008 - 00:09 ET by balboaI don't think he's the bad guy. I think he's gotten caught up in an unfortunate situation. I feel really bad for him. Should he go to prison forever? Not at all. But I don't know that the situation called for a shooting death.
NOW, if it turns out to be true that the gun went off accidentally when the one kid tried to grab it? Mr. White should serve no time.
EXACTLY!
April 11, 2008 - 09:50 ET by amberEXACTLY!
Apparently, we are no
April 10, 2008 - 21:20 ET by Free StinkerApparently, we are no longer allowed to defend ourselves or our familes anymore.
Not sure that killing the
April 10, 2008 - 21:45 ET by balboaNot sure that killing the guy was an appropriate response. That's just me.
Ok, it's just you
April 10, 2008 - 21:52 ET by CobraManSo what would you have done in his place?
Stayed in my house. Called
April 10, 2008 - 21:56 ET by balboaStayed in my house. Called the police.
Stay in and hide?
April 10, 2008 - 22:19 ET by CobraManSo, you would stay in your house and let a group of guys beat up your son and possibly kill him in the process? That's NOT what parents do, they PROTECT their children form threats.
As a parent myself, I would have grabbed my Rob Carew signature baseball bat with the friction tapped handle and precede to break those young men's skulls in order to protect my child. I wouldn't hide in my house and hope that the police arrive in time to keep my son from getting seriously injured or killed. But, like you say, that's just me.
According to the article,
April 10, 2008 - 22:24 ET by balboaAccording to the article, the son was inside the house. He's the one that woke up his dad. So your hypothetical about leaving my son outside to be beaten up or killed (which I wouldn't do), doesn't apply.
And your point is?
April 10, 2008 - 22:46 ET by CobraManAnd you point is? Hypothetical situations are just that, hypothetical.
Simply because this man's son was in the house doesn't mean that the other men involved didn't have thoughts of harming someone. They threatened to harm people, they invaded private property, and they would not leave even when the man told them to leave and was forced to show a gun. Just what do you think they were doing there, just being rowdy? No, they were being forceful and aggressive and were, by anyone’s standards, a real threat to others. The man did what he had to do. Stop blaming the victim of their aggressive actions and place blame where it belongs, solely on the angry young men who started this.
The point is, I would've
April 10, 2008 - 22:49 ET by balboaThe point is, I would've just stayed inside and called the cops because my son was inside. That's what he should have done, IMO.
IMO
April 10, 2008 - 23:10 ET by CobraManI believe that you should face down those who threaten you and that you need defend yourself and your property, you don't hide and wait until someone arrives to take care of the problem for you. By refusing to directly confront aggression, you only display weakness and that always ferments even more aggressive actions against you in the future. How may people have been hurt or killed simply because they didn't fight back? Far to many, IMO.
Calling the police is not a
April 10, 2008 - 23:19 ET by balboaCalling the police is not a sign of weakness.
This death shouldn't have happened. Yes, the young men are to blame for going to the house. Absolutely. But if the man had called the cops and stayed inside, there's a good chance no one would've died, a much better turnout, don't you think? Or not.
yep
April 10, 2008 - 23:33 ET by WesenIt would have strengthened the guys case had he stayed inside and helped in the event of future problems. The misunderstanding had been brought to light too. (The black boy and the white girl). He was right when he said to his wife "we lost everything". That's what the legal aftermath will do.
Nope
April 11, 2008 - 00:31 ET by CobraManNope, the man is not to blame here. He did what he felt was necessary to stop an immediate threat to himself and his family. I will not blame him for that. I can only blame the people who were committing crimes and were threaten people and who created a situation that got one of them killed. If anyone should be charged with the young man's death it is the young men who accompanied and assisted the young man's criminal and aggressive behavior. They're the real cause of this tragedy, wouldn't you agree?
A better turnout in theory, yes, but that's not what happened
April 11, 2008 - 00:24 ET by CobraManThings turned out they way they did because of the actions of a group of angry young men who decided to invade someone's property and threaten people with bodily harm, not because of the actions of someone who feared for the lives of himself and his family.
Because of stupidly and failure to control their aggressive behavior, a group of young men created a situation where someone got killed. The man did what is necessary to defend himself for an IMMEDIATE threat and not some hypothetical situation. I would describe his actions as tragic yet heroic, not criminal and unnecessary.
It was not necessary for him
April 11, 2008 - 00:28 ET by balboaIt was not necessary for him to go outside and confront these guys.
Here we go again
April 11, 2008 - 00:53 ET by CobraManHere we go again. It WAS necessary since a group of aggresive young men had invaded his property and was threatening him and his family. They started this and they could have ended it long before someone was shot. They're the ones to blame. Yet, you keep saying HE was the one who could have prevented this death by not picking up a gun. Be truthful with yourself. You want to place blame here simply because the man used a gun, right? You’re transferring their guilt to this man simply because a gun was involved, isn't that right?
It's obvious that we're never going to agree here and that you don't believe that the use of deadly force is appropriate when someone is threatening you and/or your family. Well, the history of human nature tells me that your belief is far more fatal in the long run than mine. So, live happy in the fact that there will be men and women who believe differently than you and that these people become police officers, carry guns, and dealt with threats with the appropriate force. There will also be men, like myself, who will act in a similar manner in our own homes and will take the appropriate actions necessary to stop someone from harming people, both now and in the future.
There's no need to thank us for our commitment to the safety of those that can't or won’t defend themselves from the aggressions of others. We don't do it because we want recognition and praise, we do it because it's the only thing that will stop others from harming or killing anyone they please, any time they please, without being forced to accept the consequences of their criminal, aggressive actions.
So, you can sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge there's a man or woman out there right now, risking their life to do their best to keep you safe, even if they have to kill someone else to accomplish that or die trying.
I just realized that you're confused as to what makes a home
April 11, 2008 - 01:12 ET by CobraManI just realized that you're confused as to what makes a home. You keep stating that he didn’t need to go outside and that he should have stayed in his home and called the police