ONTD Political

Shooting of 17-year old girl compared to Trayvon Martin Case

1:21 pm - 04/23/2012
By Alex Pappas - The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller – 12 hrs ago

The Trayvon Martin case has gripped Americans since February 26, but Florida isn’t the only state reeling from the shooting of a 17-year-old at the hands of a man who claims he acted in self-defense.

A coastal community next door in Alabama is suffering over its own tragic episode that shares some similarities with the Sanford, Fla. case.

The Mobile Press-Register reported that 17-year-old Summer Moody, a star high school volleyball player in Baldwin County, Ala., was shot in the head April 15 after authorities said she and three other teens were caught breaking into a fish camp early in the morning.

Three men who found the teens trespassing on the Gravine Island property admitted to firing the shots that hit Moody.

Authorities said they believe the teens — who, with the exception of Moody, have been charged with first-degree burglary — were committing a theft at the time of the shooting.

Moody is still alive, but an attorney for her family has said she has a very little chance of survival.

The Gravine Island shooting has been compared to the Martin case because both victims were the same age and both cases involve questions of whether the shooters were within the boundaries of the law in shooting the teens in order to, according to the shooters’ accounts, protect themselves and their property.

“All the circumstances that could go bad went bad,” Baldwin County Sheriff Huey “Hoss” Mack said, according to the newspaper.

Tom Dasinger, an attorney for one of the shooters, said the men were not actually trying to kill the teens, but were rather firing warning shots to keep them away.

“They are not vigilantes,” Dasinger told WPMI in Mobile. “They were simply trying to help out their neighbors.”

The district attorney in Baldwin County has not charged the shooters with any crime.

Source

So, they're both 17. They were both shot by people claiming self-defense. Both events are tragic, but other than that, this is in no way comparable and it does both cases a disservice to do so. The media kills me with this BS, I swear. Plus, you know some concern-trolling white folk somewhere are going to pull this case out and claim it didn't get as much attention because the victim was white.
zhiva_the_mage 23rd-Apr-2012 05:48 pm (UTC)
# the men were not actually trying to kill the teens, but were rather firing warning shots to keep them away. #

I thought that when you fire warning shot, you aim at nearby object, not people...
lickety_split 23rd-Apr-2012 05:59 pm (UTC)
There is no legitimate "safe" protocol for firing warning shots. Not many objects will stop a bullet in its tracks and most people have horrible aim in real-life shooting situations.

Edited at 2012-04-23 06:00 pm (UTC)
chaya 23rd-Apr-2012 07:23 pm (UTC)
IA that no warning shot is perfectly safe - that said, if they were firing into the air or into the ground a few meters from them, as I think most warning shots tend to do, it's damn strange that they hit some moving targets in front of them.
lickety_split 23rd-Apr-2012 07:43 pm (UTC)
Yeah but if you fire into the air, the bullet doesn't fly into outer space. Eventually it will come propelling back to the ground and it will hit someone or something. And the problem with firing into the ground is that there might be some unseen pipe that will burst upon impact... or it'll cause the bullet to ricochet right back into the shooter. Pulling the gun out is the "warning".

Edited at 2012-04-23 07:46 pm (UTC)
chaya 23rd-Apr-2012 07:50 pm (UTC)
IA IA. The point I was trying to make is that while firing into the air will mean a bullet will fall somewhere, the odds that it would hit one of three targets directly in front of you are so low that they were probably lying and weren't firing "warning" shots at all.
lickety_split 23rd-Apr-2012 07:56 pm (UTC)
I totes didn't realize I misread your original comment until I posted the reply... twice LOL.
chaya 23rd-Apr-2012 08:03 pm (UTC)
haha, no worries
bex 23rd-Apr-2012 07:05 pm (UTC)
I think there are many pro-gun-safety gun owners who would say there's no such thing as a warning shot - when you fire your weapon, it's because your life is threatened and that means you shoot to stop the threat. If things are to the point where you are firing your weapon, the time for warnings is gone.
laja_89 23rd-Apr-2012 10:56 pm (UTC)
Yah, I have a hard time believing it was a warning shot when the young girl was shot in the head.
kira_snugz 24th-Apr-2012 12:45 am (UTC)
the standard proceedure for "OMG GIT OFF MY LAWN" is to fire directly into the ground, no farther than half way between you and the person you want to warn.

or at least, thats what the rcmp told my uncle to do with the jerkwads that were wandering on to his land and growing pot in the back woods. you call 911, you walk outside, you yell that you have called 911 and that they are trespassing, you yell for them to leave, you yell that you have a gun, you fire a warning shot, and yell for them to leave again, rinse and repeat until the rcmp shows up and tell them which way the trespassers headed, then you take your gun inside and put it back in the gun safe.

the rcmp stress that you NEVER actually aim your gun at another person no matter what, because accidents happen. and if you aim at objects, the dangers of ricocheting bullets pop up. you can't control where a ricocheting bullet goes.
mirhanda 23rd-Apr-2012 05:53 pm (UTC)
While different in that the girls were probably breaking the law, it still seems weird to me that no one was arrested. That's just wrong in my book.
bestdaywelived 23rd-Apr-2012 06:04 pm (UTC)
Especially since it wasn't a case of these men protecting their OWN property, but "watching out for a neighbor".
mirhanda 23rd-Apr-2012 06:07 pm (UTC)
Yeah, and I think (at least I was told by a policeman) that you aren't allowed to use deadly force to protect property in this state. He also said if you shot someone who was inside your house, you probably wouldn't get questioned about it, but this was not inside someone's house.
kaowolfie 23rd-Apr-2012 06:23 pm (UTC)
Castle doctrine has some huge, Mount Olympian issues on its own, but it seems to be that permitting its use for *property you don't even own* is way beyond the intended scope of it. Not a lawyer, but... it just seems like an obvious thing to me?

edit: hm, looks like Alabama goes more for stand-your-ground than Castle. Still really a screwed up law. How the hell were these men supposedly being so threatened that they had to fire shots in self-defense, by people breaking into someone else's property?

Edited at 2012-04-23 06:30 pm (UTC)
vanishingbee 23rd-Apr-2012 06:24 pm (UTC)
WTF I def missed that part
laja_89 23rd-Apr-2012 10:57 pm (UTC)
Exactly. They were trespassing, but harmless. There was no reason for guns to be involved at all.
vanishingbee 23rd-Apr-2012 05:59 pm (UTC)
I think the fact that these teens were, in fact, breaking the law & trespassing (rather than being pursued after merely WWB) significantly changes the situation.
resounding_echo 23rd-Apr-2012 06:23 pm (UTC)
THIS IS WHY YOU DO NOT FIRE WARNING SHOTS. Do not fire a gun at or around a living being if you are not prepared to take their life.
bex 23rd-Apr-2012 07:06 pm (UTC)
Ah, I didn't scroll down, but yes - just said this upthread! Every pro-gun-safety gun owner I've ever spoken to has said this exact thing. If things are so serious that you are discharging a firearm, the time for warnings is gone and you are shooting to neutralize the threat.
wumbawoman 23rd-Apr-2012 07:16 pm (UTC)
EXACTLY.
sesmo 23rd-Apr-2012 09:36 pm (UTC)
You think it was a warning shot fired into the air that accidentally hit her in the head? I guess the doctors could tell us, based on trajectory, but that doesn't sound like any kind of warning shot to me.
resounding_echo 24th-Apr-2012 05:16 am (UTC)
No, I find the story incredibly suspect. But even if that were the case, my point is you don't fire at a living being unless you are prepared to injury or kill that being.
meran_flash 23rd-Apr-2012 10:20 pm (UTC)
In love with your icon.
resounding_echo 24th-Apr-2012 05:17 am (UTC)
And so appropriate for this comm. :) I encourage its rampant use.
sephirajo 23rd-Apr-2012 11:50 pm (UTC)
This.

The concept of warning shots has always escaped me, to be honest. My Dad always told me the second I pointed my gun at anyone, I had better be ready to kill that person, because that's how serious of a weapon a gun is.
dixiedolphin 24th-Apr-2012 12:14 am (UTC)
Ditto this. Where did these people learn gun safety?! A cardinal rule, that was drilled into me quite often: do not point the muzzle of any gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.
kaowolfie 23rd-Apr-2012 06:29 pm (UTC)
Treyvon was just walking. He was not committing any actual crime other than being a black person existing.

This case, with Summer Moody, should be considered fucked up on its own merits, not compared with Treyvon's murder based solely on the fact that the victims were both seventeen year olds killed in supposed self-defense. Summer was breaking the law, which adds a different tenor. In addition... Who the hell shoots a gun at someone or something they aren't willing to kill? Who the hell shoots a gun at someone breaking into someone *else's* property, instead of calling the cops? Even assuming that Castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws aren't often used in really screwed up ways, which they totally are... How the fuck was it "self-defense" to shoot someone committing a crime that has no direct impact on the shooter, where the shooter was not threatened?
ragnor144 23rd-Apr-2012 06:58 pm (UTC)
There is a difference in that they were breaking a law, but that still doesn't mean that they deserved to be shot for it. I still do not understand why the United States insists that property > human life.
kalikahuntress 23rd-Apr-2012 07:01 pm (UTC)
Wow, this is so not comparable and stop trying to take attention away from martin's case for fuck sakes media.
wumbawoman 23rd-Apr-2012 07:22 pm (UTC)
How convenient that they didn't mention Yoshihiro Hattori who by coincidence, was also 17.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
milleniumrex 23rd-Apr-2012 07:36 pm (UTC)
Probably because it was 20 years ago, and this case just happened now. But wow, I did not know about that case. Fucked up.
armina_skitty 24th-Apr-2012 12:22 am (UTC)
That is one seriously fucked up case. WHY would you shoot someone who's just walking, and on HALLOWEEN?!?!
world_dancer 23rd-Apr-2012 07:24 pm (UTC)
Not comparable.

Trayvon was not doing anything wrong.
Trayvon was not anywhere he wasn't supposed to be.
Trayvon did not potentially outnumber the person who perpetrated the crime.
Zimmerman has never claimed to have "shot in warning."

bestdaywelived 24th-Apr-2012 05:00 am (UTC)
Are you suggesting that her shooting was okay because of those factors?
illusivevenstar 24th-Apr-2012 04:10 pm (UTC)
no they're suggesting that the stories aren't comparable. because they're not.
angry_chick 24th-Apr-2012 06:38 pm (UTC)
That's not what was read. These stories are only comparable in that these are two awful shooting of 17 year olds by gun-toting assholes on a power trip. Beyond that, there are no more similarities.
bestdaywelived 25th-Apr-2012 02:25 am (UTC)
That's fair. I think there was a knee-jerk reaction to me, like this was almost victim blaming.
abee 23rd-Apr-2012 10:57 pm (UTC)
*googles Summer Moody*

Ah. White girl. Right.

Loo, the crime is awful, yes, but, really, comparing a white girl who WAS committing a crime to a black boy who was just walking home? FAIL.
laja_89 23rd-Apr-2012 10:59 pm (UTC)
The cases aren`t comparable. But the case of Summer is still tragic and there was absolutely NO reason for guns to be involved. She wasn`t an armed robber, probably up to some teenage prank.
tabaqui 23rd-Apr-2012 11:20 pm (UTC)
I get these aren't the same, but anyone saying 'well, she was breaking the law' and other such comments...just don't. She was shot while doing something illegal, yes, but not something that was putting anyone in danger or threatening anyone or even any*thing*, really - they weren't setting stuff on fire, or whatever. Just like - even if Trayvon had an 'empty baggie' in his backpack, that still didn't mean he deserved to be shot.

Just...smacks a little too close to victim-blaming. She didn't deserve to be shot *at all*, unless she was physically attacking someone or wielding her own weapon.
armina_skitty 24th-Apr-2012 12:25 am (UTC)
This! Oh gods, this so damn much!
emofordino 24th-Apr-2012 02:40 am (UTC)
this! i can understand not wanting to compare the two stories, considering the fact that trayvon was racially profiled, but just because these girls were breaking the law doesn't mean that any of them deserved to be shot and killed without even having a chance to explain themselves.
soleiltropiques 24th-Apr-2012 05:17 pm (UTC)
I agree. This is a kid we're talking about. Like you said, the two cases aren't the same, but this girl was just a kid.
soleiltropiques 24th-Apr-2012 05:25 pm (UTC)
PS: And even if she'd been an adult... let's not. There are no words for how horrible all this violence is.
effervescent 24th-Apr-2012 02:26 am (UTC)
Except... Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong at the time.

Not that that justifies using a gun, jfc. This is why I am so glad that gun rights are not a part of the Canadian psyche to the extent that they seem to be in the US, because it seems like for every five responsible owners there's at least one who's irresponsible... And that's all it takes.
soleiltropiques 24th-Apr-2012 05:21 pm (UTC)
I live in Montreal, and I knew one of the girls who died in the Polytechnique massacre. So I completely agree -I also wrote a long letter about this issue to Stephen Harper (i.e. Prime Minister of Canada) when they were planning to get rid of the long gun registry last year.

Not that my letter did anything, you understand (I got a rather condescending letter back from Minister Vic Toews about how this repeal was such a good idea, blah blah blah).

Yes, this was a FAIL.
apostle_of_eris 24th-Apr-2012 04:22 am (UTC)
Alabama — where "simply trying to help out their neighbors" means shooting them in the head.
mingemonster 24th-Apr-2012 04:51 am (UTC)
this is a tragedy, but the fact that racism was not involved means that it isn't as relevant to the public as trayvon martin's case was
This page was loaded May 19th 2013, 9:54 am GMT.