Teen Killed After Tossed Egg Hits Motorist In Face

We had kids in our neighborhood about 2 years ago, who actually ran by my friend's house in broad daylight and smashed his friend's windshield with a rock. He and his friends chased the little ****s back to their doorstep and a block war practically erupted, because the parents didn't want to deal with their kids. 5 police officers were dispatched and while 2 of them took statements, the other 3 were sent to stop my friends and the kids' parents,who were in a Mexican standoff.

And here's the kicker, the the father of one of the kids said "So WHAT? Boys will be boys, they do that kind of shit all the time! Whata ya' want ME to do about it"? he then said "I'm not paying anything, let insurance take care of it.!"

What should he have done?

Well how about him and the other parents disciplining their little welfare whelps on how to respect peoples' property? And letting them know there's consequences for their actions? That's the problem today, noone has respect for anyone's property.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
The article doesn't need to state shit. The picture shows there's no bridge, that it's right in a residential area..

The picture shows a few cops standing in the grass on the side of "A" Road..next to part of a police car. There's a train or some sort of wall in the background, and we are able to see maybe about "1" foots worth of "A" road in the picture. The entire stretch of the road, and its surrounding area are NOT shown.

Did I forget to mention that the "original" article posted in this forum never stated that the picture represented the spot where the children were throwing eggs.

And lest us not forget that the names of the streets and information that you received from the "subsequent article"(not the original one posted in this forumn)..do little to support exactly where the children were at when they assaulted drivers. Not that it matters, but I find it funny that despite all this lack of information, you are somehow able to determine what the entire road is encompassed by..and where the kids were when they engaged in the attack? 🙄 😆

A link to the article where you received your updated information from is directly below this paragraph.

Little sh*theads get what's comming to them

note* The article above alludes to the children more than likely being involved in a string of vandalism and assaults in the area..

and common ****ing sense tells you that a residential street isn't busy near MIDNIGHT on a SUNDAY NIGHT when people have to go to work/school the next day.
But, then again, common sense also tells you that you're not supposed to open fire on kids throwing eggs, so I guess it isn't so common.

Again..common ****ing sense tells us that if we assault people and their cars at MIDNIGHT on a SUNDAY...we're going to get a negative reaction. But again...like these little sh*tburgers..you do not seem to understand this simple concept.

Got another question for ya bud..if this had been a Police Vehicle(marked or unmarked) and the children had played their little "JOKE" on Police Officers....would you be so inclined to say that the officer would be in the wrong for firing a "warning shot" at them?

And after you answer that question..try to answer this one.
If one of the attackers had been killed by the "warning" shot fired by the Police Officer...who would be to blame for his death?

Yeah, my first assumption is that it's kids being kids. I'd be angry, but I'm not stupid enough to kill children over it. Assaulting people doesn't equal a "joke" in my opinion. Had the person who was "assaulted" died, it's a totally different story, but they didn't, rendering your scenario invalid. Someone DID die, and it was a kid, by someone who wrongfully took offense to a prank.

If they were out to hurt someone "maliciously", you really think EGGS were the way to go? Why not rocks? Why not A GUN? Why not a slingshot? Why not water balloons? All of which would have a MUCH, MUCH more significant impact on the operator of a motor vehicle? Why not? Because I highly doubt they were out to hurt innocent people with their prank.

The kids location isn't a moot point, either. The speed limit plays a major factor, as does road signage. i.e. the driver had to be going pretty slow, if not stopped, for the egger to nail the guy dead in the head, the driver driving slow enough to stop, get out of his car, take out a gun, and hit TWO kids while they're running. Location makes a big, big difference, infact. You couldn't do that on any highway, where the average speed limit is 55 MPH. If you can, you must be S.W.A.T. [/B]

Let me break things down a bit, your rationale is that if intention to harm does not = death, Then one's response to an assault should be "HA...HA VERY FUNNY.. IT'S NOT A SERIOUS CRIME..BOYS WILL BE BOYS..." Even though the possibility of a more serious offense being commited exists.

With that type of rationale...I could state that a burglar who robs a bank and fires a loaded gun, shouldn't be charged with attempted murder, because he didn't kill anyone. Or that a police officer who fires at an individual for throwing an object at him without provacation..should be charged with a serious crime.

Again my friend.."common sense" dictates the rationale behind these two scenarios to be obsurd..but as you alluded to earlier with your response..

Common sense is not so "common" now a days..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Then one's response to an assault should be "HA...HA VERY FUNNY.. IT'S NOT A SERIOUS CRIME..BOYS WILL BE BOYS..." Even though the possibility of a more serious offense being commited exists.

I hate when people make this stupid statement. There are a bunch of 8-year old little sh*ts in my neighborhood who used to drive little mopeds around the neighborhood. Yes, you heard me right. 8 year olds riding mopeds with full parental permission. I assume when the parent makes a purchase of a moped for their children then that constitutes parental permission.

So, as you can guess, they started hitting parked cars, which have every right to be parked where they are (let me just state that, in case someone tries to "spin" that fact).

Okay, so after these juvenile deliquents hit the cars, they ran home to Mommy and Daddy. Unfortunately, this was during a span of a few weeks and not everyone had video cameras pointed in their front yard. So there was no EVIDENCE (many were seen, though) about which kid (there were many) hit which car.

So when the neighbor who was a victim went to the parents of the kid who hit their car (many of the kids were seen hitting the cars and then scooting away), the parents simply said it was someone else's kid. Since there no evidence, nothing could be done. All it did was force the victim to pay his deductible and face a higher premium.

They don't allow those mopeds to be driven by infants anymore, but at least ten cars were hit. Luckily, I park my car in my garage.

So, in this case, I blame the parents for allowing their children to do stupid sh*t with a major potential consequence. I also blame the "gang" of kids. Did the parents tell the children to run away after they hit a car? I would guess that would be a no, folks. The point is, NO ONE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY for what they did. There was no retaliation by the neighbors, and look what the end result was. It would not have been any better with retaliation, of course, but it still pisses me off.

If they mess with my car, I might urinate on them from atop their house when they least expect it.

Originally posted by KidRock
''Two Indianapolis teens were shot, one fatally, after a tossed egg struck a motorist in the face.

Police said the teens were throwing eggs at cars Sunday night at about 11 p.m. when an egg hit an unidentified driver in the head.

The driver stopped, got out of the car and opened fire, witnesses said.

He shot one boy in the leg and another in the stomach as the group ran from the scene, according to the report.

When the two uninjured boys realized one friend was missing, they returned to the scene and found 15-year-old Brandon Dunson dead.

The group admitted their prank to police and gave them a description of the shooter and his vehicle.

"I think they should find him (the shooter)," egg-thrower James Patterson said. "I don't know where he is right now, but I hope he regrets what he did because he just shot a minor over some eggs. He didn't have to take it to the extreme."

Police said a man called them to report the egg-throwing kids. They believe he may have been the same man involved in the boy's death.

Investigators were trying to locate him Monday.''

http://www.local6.com/news/4766702/detail.html

Pretty ****ing harsh.

This been going on for years.JM 🙁

Well, now that Jackie posted, there goes any hope of discussion for my moped post.

** You may commence with the JM anti-post fire **

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
This been going on for years.JM 🙁

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
This been going on for years.JM 🙁

more proof of my theory. you cant tell me she didnt intentionally leave out the word "has" from the sentence. once again, good luck on that dissertation JM. you have everyone else completely fooled. BRAVO!!!

Originally posted by botankus
Well, now that Jackie posted, there goes any hope of discussion for my moped post.

** You may commence with the JM anti-post fire **

I like your last sentence.........

What really gets me is that the same types of peeps who seem to be crying about the harshness of the attack on these little punks....are the same types of peeps who have stated that the "pregnant woman" who was "TASERED" by a cop had it coming to her. Keep in mind...the woman had no prior criminal history...and was taking her freaking kids to school...

I can almost assure you that these little f*ckers had a long extensive rap sheet..and were linked to the prior assaults/vandalism of the same kind...

So some dude went ape sh*t on them..so what. At least now they've learned that its not so nice to f*ck with people. Especially those who you don't know very well.

I think I've uncovered the research site!

See her picture on the front page?

i agree fully.
f*** that kid. f*** the driver.
just two a**holes passing in the night,
one with an egg and one with a gun.
i really dont care.

Originally posted by botankus
I think I've uncovered the research site!

See her picture on the front page?

ahhh the plot thickens

Originally posted by PVS
i agree fully.
f*** that kid. f*** the driver.
just two a**holes passing in the night,
one with an egg and one with a gun.
i really dont care.

I wonder if that was sarcasm but yeah......

no sarcasm at all.
so much tragedy in the world. children dying of starvation,
cancer etc. shit that could not have prevented in any way.
THAT is worthy of sympathy. kids get kidnapped, raped and murdered
in broad daylight when they're just minding their own business.
THAT i will cry for.

some little prick goes out at night looking for trouble and finds
it in abundance, and we're supposed to cry for him?

"boys being boys"? how about "parents being parents" and smack the living shit out of your kid the second you see him heading out in the night to damage other people's property. problem solved-life saved

Indeed. Its like the thing over here about people leaving lumps of wood/metal/whatever on railway tracks...

They aren't attempting to enhance the look of the tracks any...!
But its still only classified as a prank/vandalism....
But attempted derailment of packed trains= attempted mass murder in my book.

Sure. The driver/shooter here was a little extreme in reaction but as others have said- The kids HAD to be wanting negative consequence of reaction... and they got it... F*** with nutters, get nutted.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The picture shows a few cops standing in the grass on the side of "A" Road..next to part of a police car. There's a train or some sort of wall in the background, and we are able to see maybe about "1" foots worth of "A" road in the picture. The entire stretch of the road, and its surrounding area are NOT shown.

Did I forget to mention that the "original" article posted in this forum never stated that the picture represented the spot where the children were throwing eggs.

And lest us not forget that the names of the streets and information that you received from the "subsequent article"(not the original one posted in this forumn)..do little to support exactly where the children were at when they assaulted drivers. Not that it matters, but I find it funny that despite all this lack of information, you are somehow able to determine what the entire road is encompassed by..and where the kids were when they engaged in the attack? 🙄 😆

A link to the article where you received your updated information from is directly below this paragraph.

Little sh*theads get what's comming to them

note* The article above alludes to the children more than likely being involved in a string of vandalism and assaults in the area..

Again..common ****ing sense tells us that if we assault people and their cars at MIDNIGHT on a SUNDAY...we're going to get a negative reaction. But again...like these little sh*tburgers..you do not seem to understand this simple concept.

Got another question for ya bud..if this had been a Police Vehicle(marked or unmarked) and the children had played their little "JOKE" on Police Officers....would you be so inclined to say that the officer would be in the wrong for firing a "warning shot" at them?

And after you answer that question..try to answer this one.
If one of the attackers had been killed by the "warning" shot fired by the Police Officer...who would be to blame for his death?

Let me break things down a bit, your rationale is that if intention to harm does not = death, Then one's response to an assault should be "HA...HA VERY FUNNY.. IT'S NOT A SERIOUS CRIME..BOYS WILL BE BOYS..." Even though the possibility of a more serious offense being commited exists.

With that type of rationale...I could state that a burglar who robs a bank and fires a loaded gun, shouldn't be charged with attempted murder, because he didn't kill anyone. Or that a police officer who fires at an individual for throwing an object at him without provacation..should be charged with a serious crime.

Again my friend.."common sense" dictates the rationale behind these two scenarios to be obsurd..but as you alluded to earlier with your response..

Common sense is not so "common" now a days..

yawn

I'll make this as quick as possible.

* The picture shows a street sign, a stucco wall with bushes, a ditch, a police car, and a powerline with POLICE TAPE, which is more than likely roping off the scene of the crime, being the kids death. The egging ALL TOO OBVIOUSLY happened only feet away, given the kid was shot in the stomach, and dropped down, bleeding out. Again, the article doesn't need to state the obvious.

* The names of the street do EVERYTHING to support it, given they are virtually THE SAME PLACE.

* Lack of information? I don't think so...

* The article you provided doesn't suggest anything, and I already supplied an article excerpt that suggested there were similar incidents already, but none that incriminated the kid that was killed.

* I understand the concept just fine, it's the retaliation I don't get.

* Warning shot isn't an actual shot in someone's stomach. Another scenario that doesn't hold water, because it's a totally different situation. The policeman would also have the common sense to chase them down, not attack, mind you.

* The police officer would be found guilty for his "warning shot", which would have been shot IN THE AIR, and not AT THE KIDS. Had his "warning shot", which SHOULD NOT have been fired at the kids, struck one of them, the pig would be guilty of using excessive force, and probably 2nd degree murder. He WOULD be convicted, given it was an offense against a minor.

* The possibility doesn't reflect what happened. Just another "what if" scenario that doesn't matter. If something is INTENDED and DOESN'T HAPPEN...how does it equal DEATH if the target lives? Answer me that.

* You'd have to know if the burgular was intending to kill people with his shots, and if anyone was hit. You can't assume he's looking to kill anyone. Innocent until proven guilty. He could be looking to temporarily incapacitate someone who could potentially hinder his getaway.

...are we done? I'm tired of splitting hairs. The kid didn't deserve to die for throwing an egg that didn't do any harm other then embarass some psycho.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth

Sure. The driver/shooter here was a little extreme in reaction but as others have said- The kids HAD to be wanting negative consequence of reaction... and they got it... F*** with nutters, get nutted.

🤨

Murder isn't exactly "a little extreme", and I doubt these kids were looking forward to being confronted for what they were doing.

I feel like all my work was for nothing. I'm referring to my great post about mopeds.

Just somebody, somewhere, say, "That's great. Who cares?" and I'll feel like my time was worthwhile.

Originally posted by botankus
I feel like all my work was for nothing. I'm referring to my great post about mopeds.

Just somebody, somewhere, say, "That's great. Who cares?" and I'll feel like my time was worthwhile.

I told you that I liked your last sentence....what more do you want.....

I wanted this, and only this: 😖anta:

😖anta: was all I wanted! Is that so hard to do?