Hypothetical ethics problem

[gabosaurus]

I know your kids wouldn't do this. But sometimes, kids get caught up in things and lose their heads. It could happen. How would you handle it?

This is NOT a gun control thread. I repeat, this is NOT a gun control thread! Save your gun arguments for other threads. :)

Your 16-year-old son and a friend want to impress a girl from school that they both like. The feelings are mutual, so the boys plan a surprise. They drive to her home late one night, sneak in an unlocked window and are trying to find her room in the dark. The girl's father hears the noise and believes an intruder is looking to harm his family. He grabs his gun and kills both of the boy.
Should any charges be filed? Who is at fault? How would you react?

[Missileman]

I know your kids wouldn't do this. But sometimes, kids get caught up in things and lose their heads. It could happen. How would you handle it?

This is NOT a gun control thread. I repeat, this is NOT a gun control thread! Save your gun arguments for other threads. :)

Your 16-year-old son and a friend want to impress a girl from school that they both like. The feelings are mutual, so the boys plan a surprise. They drive to her home late one night, sneak in an unlocked window and are trying to find her room in the dark. The girl's father hears the noise and believes an intruder is looking to harm his family. He grabs his gun and kills both of the boy.
Should any charges be filed? Who is at fault? How would you react?

No charges...CLEARLY the boys fault.

[stephanie]

someones obsessed with guns..:poke:

[avatar4321]

hypotheticals are pointless. There are too many details that would happen in real life that couldnt be encased in a hypothetical.

[Kathianne]

Quite realistic hypothetical and MM is correct. I'm sure he'd have many terrors for the rest of his life, but did the right thing.

[diuretic]

I know your kids wouldn't do this. But sometimes, kids get caught up in things and lose their heads. It could happen. How would you handle it?

This is NOT a gun control thread. I repeat, this is NOT a gun control thread! Save your gun arguments for other threads. :)

Your 16-year-old son and a friend want to impress a girl from school that they both like. The feelings are mutual, so the boys plan a surprise. They drive to her home late one night, sneak in an unlocked window and are trying to find her room in the dark. The girl's father hears the noise and believes an intruder is looking to harm his family. He grabs his gun and kills both of the boy.
Should any charges be filed? Who is at fault? How would you react?

I haven't read any of the thread (that's my way of saying if I look like a dill it's not my fault). I will read it after I post this.

Charges should only be filed after an investigation and a proper examination of the evidence to establish if evidence exists that a crime was committed and there is a reasonable possibility of conviction. Charges shouldn't be laid as an arse-covering exercise by the police or prosecutorial authorities.

As always context is important and in this case it's the legal context. I can only speak from an understanding of how it MIGHT go in my jurisdiction. However murder would be out of the question because in my jurisdiction it's entirely possible that a plea of self-defence to murder would be successful. The only other option is to charge manslaughter. Where I am manslaughter can be charged if the actions are reckless or negligent. It's probably not negligent because the bloke knew what he was doing (and in his mind he was defending his family from an intruder). Was it reckless? It depends. If he thought his family were being threatened by an intruder just how far should he go to make sure it was an intruder before shooting? In this case there would need to be more facts known but just on what we have I would suggest he wasn't reckless. So, I don't think that a criminal prosecution would be successful in my jurisdiction.

As to the morality of his actions. If he genuinely believed that his family was under threat from intruders and genuinely believed they were breaking in to his home then he had a moral duty to protect himself and his family.

I didn't approach this as the father of one of the dead boys because I would be in no position to make judgements on anything.

[diuretic]

In a practical legal sense avatar is completely correct, if I may say so. Sometimes people in casual conversation say that the facts in one case are identical to the facts in another. They're not, ever. There are always variables and differences and they can number the thousands in various ways. But it's a useful hypothetical nonetheless. I'm just waiting to see if gab has a twist in this or there's a McGuffin in the story.

[Psychoblues]

Hypotheticals are always difficult if not impossible to comprehensively answer, aren't they?

Even actual but otherwise simple b&e cases can become so convoluted that the average judge throws out the charge simply due to the excellent work of an exceptionally savvy criminal defense counselor. Which just goes to show, how in hell is true justice to prevail?!?!?!?!??!??!??!???!?!?!??!?!?!?

I suggest that the facts and nothing but the facts be presented in any court of law. Opinions are like assholes. They generally stink.

[midcan5]

This is hypothetical only in the sense that Gabby has made it up, surely things like this happen. Legally in our country the father is within his rights. If you extend the hypothetical into how both actions should have been handled then you get into all sorts of areas of debate and complexity including what sort of society we create. I am always reminded of a policemen (not sure who) and Michael Moore. The policeman was giving ways to keep yourself safe and at an intersection would try to open the doors of stopped cars. This was before they all locked on start. And Moore opening doors in Canada. Our home was never locked and my mother in her eighties still doesn't lock it.

[Sitarro]

This is hypothetical only in the sense that Gabby has made it up, surely things like this happen. Legally in our country the father is within his rights. If you extend the hypothetical into how both actions should have been handled then you get into all sorts of areas of debate and complexity including what sort of society we create. I am always reminded of a policemen (not sure who) and Michael Moore. The policeman was giving ways to keep yourself safe and at an intersection would try to open the doors of stopped cars. This was before they all locked on start. And Moore opening doors in Canada. Our home was never locked and my mother in her eighties still doesn't lock it.

That would be the ACLU's charge against the father. He was negligent in leaving the window unlocked and therefore inviting ferrel boys to easily come in and have sex with his young daughter who was obviously in heat. For him to shoot these bright young men who were driven by instinct to procreate was nothing short of murder.

[Trigg]

Should any charges be filed? Who is at fault? How would you react?

As sad as a situation like that would be the boys are clearly at fault. They broke into a home---Illegal.

I doubt the father could be charged since he was protecting his family.

[5stringJeff]

No charges...CLEARLY the boys fault.

Word.