Haunted House

Scott Hardie | August 23, 2007
Teenaged girls hear stories of a haunted house that few people in town know about. They wander onto the grounds. They hear firecrackers, but it turns out to be the reclusive owner shooting at them. They flee, but when driving past, one girl is shot in the head and remains paralyzed. The owner of the house has been sentenced to nineteen years in prison. (link)

What do you think?

Obviously it's a sad story, and this news account barely scratches the surface of the many details which make up the case. I'm inclined to trust the judgment of a jury that heard those many details in court over yours or mine, but from just what's in this article, I have to side with the owner. He was harassed before by these kids, they entered his property without permission, and he had a right to protect himself and his mother. His force was excessive, but within the law – or at least the law as I understand it, and that probably means I have misconceptions. I've always heard that crossing into a homestead is trespassing, but apparently no signs means no trespassing. I've also always heard that one has a right to use force to repel trespassers, but apparently that's only if they pose a direct physical threat, or at least that's the case here. I must accept my ignorance on the topic and merely feel sad that two lives are now wrecked over this.

Jackie Mason | August 23, 2007
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | August 23, 2007
I feel sorry for the guy and I think he made a bad decision. It said in the article (although the what wasn't specified) that there was some kind of mistrust between his family and the police, so his not calling the police, while tragic (and tragically dumb), is probably not too surprising. Neighbors had heard "firecracker" sounds several times before, but no one ever said anything to the police? That's a bad decision too. (Not that I am in any way suggesting that this is the neighbors fault for not calling the police previous to this) But, honestly, you can't say the teenagers are totally innocent. They made a choice to go on a ghost hunt (who goes onto the property of someone on a ghost hunt? I've gone onto property I knew was abandoned before looking for ghosts (at the age of 11, by the way, not 17...how can you have so little sense at 17?)), and they aren't new to the area (from what I've read), so it's not like they didn't know. (Out of curiosity, Scott, you say that few people in town knew about the house, but I don't see that stated anywhere. Is that in a different article? That, if true, changes some things). He apparently didn't want to be thought of as insane or crazy (although some people seem to think he was), and he passed tests of competency, so that's not the trouble. I think there is no right side on this. Everybody had some degree of wrongness in this, and it's sad that it ended the way it did.

But I do think it's crazy to say that you have to have signs telling you to stay the heck off someone's private property! If I were a law-maker (which scares me!), I'd make trespassing laws be that you had to have signs saying you didn't care if someone came on your property, and that the basic assumption was stay the heck off!

Jackie Mason | August 24, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | August 24, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 26, 2007
Hahaha... yes, I confess that it actually made me feel even *less* compassionate for the teens -- I guess without kids I'm turning "crotchety" before my time... ;-D

Pretty much, though, I second everything that Aaron said!