SAN DIEGO – San Diego police say a 16-year-old boy throwing rocks at a sport utility vehicle was struck by a crossbow bolt fired by a passenger.
Police say the shirtless boy and a friend were throwing rocks at a black Toyota RAV4 in the Linda Vista neighborhood Monday afternoon when a passenger fired a crossbow out the window.
The boy was shot in the right side and was taken to a hospital. The San Diego Union-Tribune says his injuries are not life-threatening.
Kids that do stupid gak like this need to face the consequences of their actions more often. Some people have to learn the hard way before they relent, (even while hthey are still children), and start to fall in line with how normal society operates.
Case in point, when I was a child during the summer, I remember I once stood outside on my front lawn with a hose and shot water at cars passing by, even if their windows were down. A car stopped after being sprayed, backed up and then my parents found out. I received a spanking right then and there for all of the neighbors to see and the unfortunate motorist, and thus, there were no more cars sprayed with a hose during any following summers.
RatBot wrote:This may sound sadistic, but good. I hope that little gak learned a valuable lesson.
Agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:So firing a crossbow means your 'Tyrion'?
Hmm. Pop culture rears its ugly squat odd eyed noseless head again.
Who's Tyrion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Woah, shot a kid with a crossbow? That's some serious road rage!
I can't really condone that.
A "stone" can kill a person in a car. Mess with the bull you get the horns. SUV driver should get a metal, a parade, and an invite to hang out where the flah mob attacks are for a while. He also needs an outfit and needs to call himself something like "the Bolt."
I estimate that half of you saying "he deserved it" did similarly stupid stuff when you were kids. Just be thankful there wasn't some nutjob with a crossbow present.
gorgon wrote:I estimate that half of you saying "he deserved it" did similarly stupid stuff when you were kids. Just be thankful there wasn't some nutjob with a crossbow present.
NO I DIDN'T BECAUSE I WAS RAISED PROPERLY AND WAS NOT A, YOU KNOW, IDIOT.
This is sorta funny in a twisted sort of way. More because I imagine the bugs bunny cartoons. One pulls a gun, the other pulls out a cannon and blows him away.
The real question is who carries a crossbow with them everywhere they go? Or at the very least why was it in the front of the car and not stowed away in the trunk?
Infreak wrote:The real question is who carries a crossbow with them everywhere they go? Or at the very least why was it in the front of the car and not stowed away in the trunk?
This was kind of my question.
Someone just happened to have a crossbow handy? The kid who got shot certainly won the "unlucky lottery" there.
Orlanth wrote:So firing a crossbow means your 'Tyrion'?
Hmm. Pop culture rears its ugly squat odd eyed noseless head again.
Who's Tyrion?
Dear Mr. Troy,
I am writing you on behalf of the Department of Nerds and Dorks. This letter is to inform you that we are hereby revoking your Nerd Establishment Score. You can no longer refer to yourself as a "nerd", "dork", "geek" or "gamer".
We note that this is due to your lack of knowledge about A Song of Ice and Fire which all nerds are required to be familiar with.
Until you have completed the required reading, we will not be able to reverse this decision, and all appeals will be summarily dismissed. If and when you complete this requirement, we will be able to reinstate you at your previous Nerd level.
Avatar 720 wrote:If you win the 'unlucky lottery' aren't you actually a loser?
Heh. I suppose so.
I'm just wondering, out of all of the cars in the US (and probably the world) that you could throw a rock at, what are the odds that the owner of the one car you decide to mess with has a crossbow locked and loaded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Don't worry, Troy -- wikipedia will suffice to meet the reading requirements Journeyman Grakmar mentioned.
Wikipedia?
That isn't a scholarly resource!
This will help him understand. All of you should watch it, really.
It's totally a Horatio Kane moment...
Wait until they put it into CSI: Miami...
Yep, if I had been more on the ball with keeping up with this thread, I would've posted:
Little gak got what was coming to him; just shows how you shouldn't quarrel with an SUV.
YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!
I estimate that half of you saying "he deserved it" did similarly stupid stuff when you were kids. Just be thankful there wasn't some nutjob with a crossbow present.
1. Hell no I didn't throw rocks at cars or deliberately damage other peoples' property.
2. He's 16. If he was 8 then perhaps I would be singing a different tune. But he's not 8. He's 16. He should damn well know better at his age.
I got chased around our small town by an irate driving instructor once. I cut up him and his student whilst on my pushbike.
A tirade of infantile abuse from my teenage mouth resulted in an hour long game of hide and get beat in various alleyways, drive ways, public pavements and the like.
It was a lark back then but now, god help any little fether that messes with me when I am driving!.
I think those of you who are exalting the guy that shot his crossbow at the kid are being a bit blinkered. I know it was wrong for the kid to throw rocks at the car, and a boot up the arse would be an appropriate reward for that sort of behaviour, possibly a clip round the earhole as well. Or, if possible, a better response would be reporting him to the authorities, but yeah, I know that generally gets you nowhere.
But the only thing that makes this an "amusing story" instead of "tragic tale of why you shouldn't fire lethal weapons at children, even if they are being dicks" is that the bolt didn't hit anything vital. If the guy had killed the kid, nobody would be cheering him (I hope) we'd be thinking "christ, what an over-reaction!" And the line between that happening and the kid escaping with an injury is thin.
Of course, maybe you're okay with lethal force towards minors making a nuisance of themselves, whatever. I'm bloody well not, though.
Da Boss wrote:I think those of you who are exalting the guy that shot his crossbow at the kid are being a bit blinkered. I know it was wrong for the kid to throw rocks at the car, and a boot up the arse would be an appropriate reward for that sort of behaviour, possibly a clip round the earhole as well. Or, if possible, a better response would be reporting him to the authorities, but yeah, I know that generally gets you nowhere.
But the only thing that makes this an "amusing story" instead of "tragic tale of why you shouldn't fire lethal weapons at children, even if they are being dicks" is that the bolt didn't hit anything vital. If the guy had killed the kid, nobody would be cheering him (I hope) we'd be thinking "christ, what an over-reaction!" And the line between that happening and the kid escaping with an injury is thin.
Of course, maybe you're okay with lethal force towards minors making a nuisance of themselves, whatever. I'm bloody well not, though.
He's 16. he's not a kid. He can be tried as an adult and executed as an adult for crimes. As noted, "throwing stones" can amount to a whole range of items, including dropping masonry bricks onto oncoming cars. The waste of skin has no one to blame but himself.
Chowderhead wrote:Like Aliens. That movie was such gak...
Wait what.
That was a worrisome non sequitur, lad. I'm reaching for my crossbow.
I'm sorry. It just was... Boring, you know? It was very cliche and I predicted every death, every plot point, and just felt like yawning after the movie was over.
Da Boss wrote:Wow.
Loving the justification here guys.
For the record, I agree with you that the teen didn't deserve to get shot and that the shooter should see serious jail time.
With this same post, I'd like to point out that throwing rocks at people is not only dumb, but also considered assault.
Or attempted murder depending on where and when. We are forgetting there was a rash of copycat attacks on cars by "kids throwing stones": aka dropping bricks onto car windshields from overpasses, that killed a few people.
You don't tug on Superman's cape.
You don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Sl...er some guy with a crossbow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Absolutely, I don't dispute that throwing rocks is scummy. Kid deserves a kick in the arse or some police intervention, whichever is gonna happen.
or a crossbow bolt.
Maybe when RT was first being thought about, Andy Chambers was looking at a guy giving him the finger and thought "I wish I had gun or something to shoot bolts at him, some sort of bolt flinging gun..."
Yes, the kid could've died, but the rocks he was throwing could've caused the driver and passenger to crash and die, or to possibly cause multiple people multiple injuries, some of which could have been life-threatening.
We can throw around hyptohetical situations all day, but as it stands, nobody died, and the kid was taught the hard way, which is the only way i'd imagine he would've learned; something tells me a stern talking to wouldn't have stopped him doing it again. If you're 16 and you still think throwing rocks at cars is cool, then I doubt you're someone who learns from simply being told off.
Da Boss wrote:I think those of you who are exalting the guy that shot his crossbow at the kid are being a bit blinkered. I know it was wrong for the kid to throw rocks at the car, and a boot up the arse would be an appropriate reward for that sort of behaviour, possibly a clip round the earhole as well. Or, if possible, a better response would be reporting him to the authorities, but yeah, I know that generally gets you nowhere.
But the only thing that makes this an "amusing story" instead of "tragic tale of why you shouldn't fire lethal weapons at children, even if they are being dicks" is that the bolt didn't hit anything vital. If the guy had killed the kid, nobody would be cheering him (I hope) we'd be thinking "christ, what an over-reaction!" And the line between that happening and the kid escaping with an injury is thin.
Of course, maybe you're okay with lethal force towards minors making a nuisance of themselves, whatever. I'm bloody well not, though.
That's a very reasonable, mature response...so WTF is it doing on this forum? You woulda scored more points with the groundlings if you'd played the internet tough guy and said you woulda twisted the bolt in the kid after you shot him. Maybe even followed up with a roundhouse kick or something. Because, you know, the kid was apparently chucking VW-sized chunks of masonry around like the Hulk. It's a miracle he didn't kill an entire school bus of young children like that.
Da Boss wrote:Absolutely, I don't dispute that throwing rocks is scummy. Kid deserves a kick in the arse or some police intervention, whichever is gonna happen.
Pffft. Everyone and by that I mean EVERYONE (even women), know the best way to resolve any conflict is to immediately escalate it with as much violence as possible. It almost sounds like you think they should have explored other readily available options first, like some kind of goddamn pussy! Wtf? Why are you telling people to be pansy ass powder-puff pussies?
Da Boss wrote:I think those of you who are exalting the guy that shot his crossbow at the kid are being a bit blinkered. I know it was wrong for the kid to throw rocks at the car, and a boot up the arse would be an appropriate reward for that sort of behaviour, possibly a clip round the earhole as well. Or, if possible, a better response would be reporting him to the authorities, but yeah, I know that generally gets you nowhere.
But the only thing that makes this an "amusing story" instead of "tragic tale of why you shouldn't fire lethal weapons at children, even if they are being dicks" is that the bolt didn't hit anything vital. If the guy had killed the kid, nobody would be cheering him (I hope) we'd be thinking "christ, what an over-reaction!" And the line between that happening and the kid escaping with an injury is thin.
Of course, maybe you're okay with lethal force towards minors making a nuisance of themselves, whatever. I'm bloody well not, though.
That's a very reasonable, mature response...so WTF is it doing on this forum? You woulda scored more points with the groundlings if you'd played the internet tough guy and said you woulda twisted the bolt in the kid after you shot him. Maybe even followed up with a roundhouse kick or something. Because, you know, the kid was apparently chucking VW-sized chunks of masonry around like the Hulk. It's a miracle he didn't kill an entire school bus of young children like that.
The Troll King called. He wants his toilet seat back.
Because, you know, the kid was apparently chucking VW-sized chunks of masonry around like the Hulk.
The size of something doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Even a small stone can make a sound that causes the driver to jump or a similar reaction, and thus causes him to make a grave error; how would you react if a stone suddenly struck your windshield out of nowhere? I highly doubt you'd be oblivious to it.
Da Boss wrote:I think those of you who are exalting the guy that shot his crossbow at the kid are being a bit blinkered. I know it was wrong for the kid to throw rocks at the car, and a boot up the arse would be an appropriate reward for that sort of behaviour, possibly a clip round the earhole as well. Or, if possible, a better response would be reporting him to the authorities, but yeah, I know that generally gets you nowhere.
But the only thing that makes this an "amusing story" instead of "tragic tale of why you shouldn't fire lethal weapons at children, even if they are being dicks" is that the bolt didn't hit anything vital. If the guy had killed the kid, nobody would be cheering him (I hope) we'd be thinking "christ, what an over-reaction!" And the line between that happening and the kid escaping with an injury is thin.
Of course, maybe you're okay with lethal force towards minors making a nuisance of themselves, whatever. I'm bloody well not, though.
That's a very reasonable, mature response...so WTF is it doing on this forum? You woulda scored more points with the groundlings if you'd played the internet tough guy and said you woulda twisted the bolt in the kid after you shot him. Maybe even followed up with a roundhouse kick or something. Because, you know, the kid was apparently chucking VW-sized chunks of masonry around like the Hulk. It's a miracle he didn't kill an entire school bus of young children like that.
The Troll King called. He wants his toilet seat back.
That isn't trolling...
If it is it's such a poor attempt i suggest he gives it up straight away before he breaks the universe with his fail...
I, too, seem to recall several stories in the past few years of kids dropping chunks of concrete, not wee little stones, but 20 pound chunks off of overpasses because it was funny. People died.
This isn't quite the same, but he could've cracked a windshield or beaned someone in the head and caused serious harm to many innocent people.
Look, if he was something like 8 or 10, I'd be outraged. If he had died, I'd be a lot less smug. But he was 16, and he lived. He should know better, and if it takes a crossbow bolt to the ribcage for him to learn, so be it.
Da Boss wrote:I think those of you who are exalting the guy that shot his crossbow at the kid are being a bit blinkered. I know it was wrong for the kid to throw rocks at the car, and a boot up the arse would be an appropriate reward for that sort of behaviour, possibly a clip round the earhole as well. Or, if possible, a better response would be reporting him to the authorities, but yeah, I know that generally gets you nowhere.
But the only thing that makes this an "amusing story" instead of "tragic tale of why you shouldn't fire lethal weapons at children, even if they are being dicks" is that the bolt didn't hit anything vital. If the guy had killed the kid, nobody would be cheering him (I hope) we'd be thinking "christ, what an over-reaction!" And the line between that happening and the kid escaping with an injury is thin.
Of course, maybe you're okay with lethal force towards minors making a nuisance of themselves, whatever. I'm bloody well not, though.
Tricky situation, and really, to make an informed decision whether or not the level of response was "justified", we'd need a lot more detail on the event.
In the UK a few years back, "kids" decided that it was a fun thing to do, to drop concrete slabs off of motorway bridges. On one occassion, if my memory serves, one such slab was dropped on a car doing around 70mph (motorway speed) and went through the windscreen, killing the driver instantly......not to mention putting every other road user at danger as the (now) dead drivers car went out of control.
Do those kids deserve a crossbow bolt? I dare say if you asked their parents, probably not.....ask the love ones of the driver, and I imagine they'd happily line up, load the bolt and take turns firing.....
Lethal force towards minors is not something that I think can be viewed from the point of view of the "criminals" age (Jamie Bulger incident comes to mind), if a minors action are the product of their upbringing, then really, so too are the actions of adults further on in life......and what really is a criminal adult, but a child who managed to "get away with it" grown up.
I do believe, being a father myself now, that there is certainly an age where children do not know any better, but I strongly believe that age to be around 5 or 6 years of age....beyond that, unless the child was raised by Apes, monkeys or wolves (some council parents qualify for this title) then they should have a fair understanding of socially acceptable behaviour.
Of course, having said all of that, if the kid was throwing small pebbles int he general direction of the car, and the owner lost it and went all Rambo on the kids ass....well, I'd suggest that's a different discussion altogether.
In the UK a few years back, "kids" decided that it was a fun thing to do, to drop concrete slabs off of motorway bridges. On one occassion, if my memory serves, one such slab was dropped on a car doing around 70mph (motorway speed) and went through the windscreen, killing the driver instantly......not to mention putting every other road user at danger as the (now) dead drivers car went out of control..
I remember that. Wasn't there an uproar because they basically got off scot free with "Oh, kids'll be kids" being an excuse?
In the UK a few years back, "kids" decided that it was a fun thing to do, to drop concrete slabs off of motorway bridges. On one occassion, if my memory serves, one such slab was dropped on a car doing around 70mph (motorway speed) and went through the windscreen, killing the driver instantly......not to mention putting every other road user at danger as the (now) dead drivers car went out of control..
I remember that. Wasn't there an uproar because they basically got off scot free with "Oh, kids'll be kids" being an excuse?
From my extremely limited and incomplete knowledge of the UK's criminal justice system, this seems to be the attitude toward a lot of juvenile offenders in the UK. Can anyone confirm/deny?
From the couple of incidents that have happened to me since I moved here, I can confirm it is the view of at least some of the police force. I got harassed by a bunch of kids who were pelting me with garbage and other projectiles (the joys of being a schoolteacher!) and the police I dealt with were sympathetic and all, but also expressed the view that it would be sad to get the kids a criminal record for that behaviour.
I can sorta see the point, but I think perhaps the UK has gone a bit too far down that road. Of course the broader question of why so many kids in the UK are such scummy yobs goes unanswered.
I can, from a certain standpoint, understand that view, but the counter-argument is simple: The kids are being criminals, and they need to learn, very quickly, that there are consequences for their actions. Yes, it's sad, but:
1.) I dunno about the UK, but in the US, Juvenile records are often sealed upon reaching majority age, if I recall correctly, so the consequences won't be all that great, but the kid will be forced to do community service or spend time in a juvenile detention center where they should hopefully learn a harsh lesson.
2.) Perhaps the kids should try not being criminals.
I agree, at 16 you should have a pretty good idea of what sort of actions will get you into trouble. Throwing rocks at a car, for example. Though no one would have guessed that trouble would have been being bolted in the side by a crossbow. A pissed off driver getting out to give the kid gak maybe, but going medieval on him? Out of the blue.
Infreak wrote:I agree, at 16 you should have a pretty good idea of what sort of actions will get you into trouble. Throwing rocks at a car, for example. Though no one would have guessed that trouble would have been being bolted in the side by a crossbow. A pissed off driver getting out to give the kid gak maybe, but going medieval on him? Out of the blue.
Incorrect. I belive this was in Southern California, the land of drive bys. Kid was lucky he didn't get unloaded on with an AK. People take their cars seriously in California.
Yeah, San Diego. If he was shot I wouldn't have been surprised. It's the crossbow that threw me off. Unless crossbows are the weapon of choice in that area.
Infreak wrote:Yeah, San Diego. If he was shot I wouldn't have been surprised. It's the crossbow that threw me off. Unless crossbows are the weapon of choice in that area.
I guess in San Diego one must be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
gorgon wrote: Because, you know, the kid was apparently chucking VW-sized chunks of masonry around like the Hulk.
David killed Goliath with a simple stone.
How about them apples? Or stones, as it were.
This is true, although David was a freakin' superhero and used a sling, which gave him a tremendous mechanical advantage over said kid and his arm, you have to admit.
Avatar 720 wrote:The size of something doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Even a small stone can make a sound that causes the driver to jump or a similar reaction, and thus causes him to make a grave error; how would you react if a stone suddenly struck your windshield out of nowhere? I highly doubt you'd be oblivious to it.
I wouldn't attempt to kill someone in that instance though. Would you? That's the issue here...not whether throwing rocks can be dangerous. It can be, but it still doesn't justify a potentially lethal response, even if we magically inflate the size of the rocks like people are doing here in an attempt to justify their original response.
Troy wrote:The Troll King called. He wants his toilet seat back.
Tell you what. You go ahead and don your sloppy joe sauce-stained Punisher t-shirt, pop your Whitesnake 8-track in the car stereo, and patrol the city with your crossbow looking for children throwing rocks that you can shoot. See how that works out for you, champ. You can send us a postcard from prison and tell us how the repeated violations are going.
I wouldn't attempt to kill someone in that instance though. Would you? That's the issue here...not whether throwing rocks can be dangerous. It can be, but it still doesn't justify a potentially lethal response, even if we magically inflate the size of the rocks like people are doing here in an attempt to justify their original response.
You completely ignored my point. A giant chunk of metal swerving around because the driver was shocked and instinctively threw on the brakes or span the wheel like a madman can cause death too, which is what I was getting at.
I also challenge you to find where people are inflating the size of the rocks, all I can see are people who are saying it would depend on their size and people who are reminding others of previous instances where 'rocks' were thrown, but were significantly larger than made out to be.
Nobody has said what size the rocks were in this scenario, the only thing I can think of that is making you believe they are is the comments about other incidents.
He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?
From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?
Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?
From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?
No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.
Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.
Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?
From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?
No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.
Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.
I think you're overestimating what the police would do in this situation. If it is indeed small rocks, the kids would get a stern talking to and maybe a fine. If they're throwing rocks large enough to incur any serious criminal charges, they very easily could have killed someone, in which case, I would prefer they get shot with a crossbow bolt.
Think of it this way:
If someone walked up to your house, and started throwing baseballs at you, would you be justified to defend yourself?
A 16 year old "kid" was throwing rocks at a car. This could have not only killed the driver in a number of ways, but could have caused him to panic and hit another car.
The "kid" got off lucky in these circumstances I'd say. He's lucky this guy pulled a one-shot crossbow on him and didn't give him 4 rounds to the chest.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for this young adult.
Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?
From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?
No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.
Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.
I think you're overestimating what the police would do in this situation. If it is indeed small rocks, the kids would get a stern talking to and maybe a fine. If they're throwing rocks large enough to incur any serious criminal charges, they very easily could have killed someone, in which case, I would prefer they get shot with a crossbow bolt.
Think of it this way:
If someone walked up to your house, and started throwing baseballs at you, would you be justified to defend yourself?
That depends on whether or not they can throw the baseball at 70+ MPH. If it's fething Randy Johnson he's going to take one to the gut.
Avatar 720 wrote:He stopped the kid and his friend throwing rocks though, didn't he?
From what was previously mentioned, that area of the US is quite notorious for gun grime, would you prefer it if the kid got turned into swiss cheese by the next car to drive past after the SUV?
No, I would have preferred the man called the police on the kid and had him arrested.
Then contact the kid's parents about damages on his car's paint.
I think you're overestimating what the police would do in this situation. If it is indeed small rocks, the kids would get a stern talking to and maybe a fine. If they're throwing rocks large enough to incur any serious criminal charges, they very easily could have killed someone, in which case, I would prefer they get shot with a crossbow bolt.
Think of it this way:
If someone walked up to your house, and started throwing baseballs at you, would you be justified to defend yourself?
That depends on whether or not they can throw the baseball at 70+ MPH. If it's fething Randy Johnson he's going to take one to the gut.
Considering the analogy... I'm going to say yes, he can and is throwing them at 70+ MPH
Da Boss wrote:From the couple of incidents that have happened to me since I moved here, I can confirm it is the view of at least some of the police force. I got harassed by a bunch of kids who were pelting me with garbage and other projectiles (the joys of being a schoolteacher!) and the police I dealt with were sympathetic and all, but also expressed the view that it would be sad to get the kids a criminal record for that behaviour.
I can sorta see the point, but I think perhaps the UK has gone a bit too far down that road. Of course the broader question of why so many kids in the UK are such scummy yobs goes unanswered.
Basically it is because it has become so hard to get a shotgun licence if you live in an urban area.
