12-Year Old trick-or-treater mistaken for burglar, killed with AK-47

[Da Skinna]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/....ap/index.html

SUMTER, South Carolina (AP) -- An ex-convict who said he thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.


Crime scene tape blocks off the home of Quentin Patrick, 22, who is charged with killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw.

1 of 2 Quentin Patrick, 22, is accused of killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw on Friday night. T.J.'s 9-year-old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital.

The family attended a Halloween celebration in downtown Sumter, 45 miles east of Columbia, then stopped at Patrick's house because the porch light was on, police said. Another sibling was with them but wasn't hurt.

Police said at least two of the boys were wearing ghoulish masks when they knocked on the door. The boys' mother and a toddler stayed in the car nearby.

Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock, Police Chief Patty Patterson said.

He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.

"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said Saturday at a news conference.

She said T.J., a bright young man, suffered multiple wounds, including a fatal shot to his head. No one answered the door at the family's home Saturday.

"This is by far one of the worst tragedies that I have had to personally experience," Patterson said. "It happened basically because kids were out doing what they would normally do on Halloween."

Patrick has been charged with murder, three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, and one count of assault with intent to kill.

Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money.

Pee's 2-year-old daughter was inside during the shooting and is now being cared for by family members.

Patterson said Patrick had multiple drug convictions but police do not believe he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the shooting. Authorities did not know if Patrick or Pee had attorneys. Both are being held without bond.

A man who identified himself as Patrick's brother but declined to give his name said in a call to The Associated Press that he believed Patrick was suffering from post-traumatic stress after a break-in last December. The man's account matched the information police provided.

"We want to let his family know that this is a total tragic accident," he said. "He was trying to protect his family."

Patrick's home is off a busy, two-lane road in Sumter, a city of about 40,000 people. On Saturday, shattered glass still covered the front stoop and about 20 bullet holes peppered the front door and a front-window casement.

The shooting shocked residents of a neighborhood where most people know each other well.

"I just hate it that that little kid got killed. It used to be the quietest place. I knew everybody and everybody knew me," said Vivian Johnson, 81, who lives two doors from Patrick and Pee but said she did not know them.

County Councilman Charles Edens said he lives just a few blocks away and passed the crime scene on his way back from trick-or-treating with his 13-year-old daughter, who was upset by the news.

"It's going to put a dampening on Halloween," Eden said. "I would think twice about going to a door that we don't know who lives behind."

Guns don't kill people, a dangerous minority of gun-owners do. This is just awful.

[Farnan]

What the hell was an ex-convict doing with an AK-47? And 29 shots?

Me thinks that man stole the weapon and was high...

[mrmouth]

What the hell was an ex-convict doing with an AK-47? And 29 shots?

Me thinks that man stole the weapon and was high...

Talk to any cop and they will tell you that even with shady gun dealers and gun shows, the majority of guns still used in crimes where a round was discharged, are stolen from legal gun owners.

So in the end, the only way to truly make it more difficult to get these automatic rifles, which in my opinion nobody needs, is to make them illegal to own for private citizens. That, with a further crackdown on gun running rings, shady dealers, and 2nd amendment crazy gun show participators who end up selling too many guns to one single person, as well as to the wrong persons, is perhaps the only way to even begin to put a dent in a major problem.

There is no reason our police departments need to be outgunned, and arming them with automatic rifles isn't really an answer to the problem.

Gun rights aren't meant to protect you from criminals

Well, call me crazy because that's why I own a handgun. Im not particularly scared of my government, in that sense. I mean that whole idea was born in a very different time.

I own one handgun. I chose a .45 for stopping power, and sacrificed mag size. I chose to look at this realistically. If in the incredibly small chance someone tries to do us harm in our home, and 7 rounds isn't enough for whatever reason, you cant say I didn't try.

[nate895]

Well, call me crazy because that's why I own a handgun. Im not particularly scared of my government, in that sense. I mean that whole idea was born in a very different time.

You think the government won't get out of hand? It already steals the fruits of our labor, funds massive overseas ventures with it, or gives it in an inefficient manner to the poor. It also steals our money by letting the Fed print more and more of it. And this latest economic crisis, it wasn't deregulation, it was the government forcing banks to give money to unqualified people to promote Bill Clinton's and W's "ownership society" garbage. Not to mention the spying because of the evil Islamic radicals who hide under your bed just waiting to get you ("oh, don't tell the people that it is really the fact our men our stationed in their holy land is ticking them off, it's really about "freeeedom", W, remember they still think they have it").

[k995]

You think the government won't get out of hand? It already steals the fruits of our labor, funds massive overseas ventures with it, or gives it in an inefficient manner to the poor. It also steals our money by letting the Fed print more and more of it. And this latest economic crisis, it wasn't deregulation, it was the government forcing banks to give money to unqualified people to promote Bill Clinton's and W's "ownership society" garbage. Not to mention the spying because of the evil Islamic radicals who hide under your bed just waiting to get you ("oh, don't tell the people that it is really the fact our men our stationed in their holy land is ticking them off, it's really about "freeeedom", W, remember they still think they have it").

And you honestly think that a bunch of armed citizens is going to stop the US army if push comes to shove?

Its an excuse and indeed an archaic law that is quit obsolete now.

[Gaidin]

Talk to any cop and they will tell you that even with shady gun dealers and gun shows, the majority of guns still used in crimes where a round was discharged, are stolen from legal gun owners.

So in the end, the only way to truly make it more difficult to get these automatic rifles, which in my opinion nobody needs, is to make them illegal to own for private citizens. That, with a further crackdown on gun running rings, shady dealers, and 2nd amendment crazy gun show participators who end up selling too many guns to one single person, as well as to the wrong persons, is perhaps the only way to even begin to put a dent in a major problem.

There is no reason our police departments need to be outgunned, and arming them with automatic rifles isn't really an answer to the problem.

They're already illegal unless you have a permit. Are you looking for redundancy?

[mrmouth]

They're already illegal unless you have a permit. Are you looking for redundancy?

You miss the entire point. A permit doesn't allow for the permit holder to live in a impenetrable castle that wont be robbed when they are away from home.

Regardless of that, there are still plenty of people who will sell these rifles for profit to shady types.

As long as these rifles are made available to any portion of the public, permit or not, they will end up in the hands of bad dudes.

[eddy_purpus]

What the hell was an ex-convict doing with an AK-47? And 29 shots?

Me thinks that man stole the weapon and was high...

same here...

[Cluny the Scourge]

Guns don't kill people, but they sure do help. If this panicky idiot hadn't had access to a gun when he saw that ghoulish mask outside he would have had to open the door with a bat or something, and seen they were just kids.

What the hell was an ex-convict doing with an AK-47? And 29 shots?

Me thinks that man stole the weapon and was high...

The police say not.

[Thanatos]

Considering that it's Halloween, the man should have known better. No excuse, I'm sorry.

It's sad that it takes only a few idiots to make the rest of us responsible gun owners look bad.

[The Dude]

Considering that it's Halloween, the man should have known better. No excuse, I'm sorry.

It's sad that it takes only a few idiots to make the rest of us responsible gun owners look bad.

Responsible as you may be, owning a gun is still pointless. An archaic law from an age long gone. It's best abolished as soon as possible. American history is by now full of "accidents" like these that make responsible gun owners look bad. When is enough enough?

Because the choice is this: a future full of further innocent death in return for your right to carry a weapon you will never use.

[Vequor]

Responsible as you may be, owning a gun is still pointless. An archaic law from an age long gone. It's best abolished as soon as possible. American history is by now full of "accidents" like these that make responsible gun owners look bad. When is enough enough?

Because the choice is this: a future full of further innocent death in return for your right to carry a weapon you will never use.

The reason that guns were allowed in the constitution was so that the people have a certain amount of authority against the state, in case it goes bad. Saying that the 2nd Amendment is an archaic law makes just as much sense as saying the same about the 1st Amendment.

[Dunecat]

He emptied the magazine.

Of an AK-47.

Humans are infants, they cannot be trusted unless they themselves are governed by the collective will.

People should not own guns. Except when the revolution comes, and you can take on the entire New World Order with your rusty 12 gauge. Because that's a legitimate excuse.

[Pope Gregorius I]

Responsible as you may be, owning a gun is still pointless. An archaic law from an age long gone. It's best abolished as soon as possible. American history is by now full of "accidents" like these that make responsible gun owners look bad. When is enough enough?

Because the choice is this: a future full of further innocent death in return for your right to carry a weapon you will never use.

as soon as we abolish that law, then there will automatically be multiple reasons to use a firearm. Thats how irony works.

[Gelgoog]

Responsible as you may be, owning a gun is still pointless. An archaic law from an age long gone. It's best abolished as soon as possible. American history is by now full of "accidents" like these that make responsible gun owners look bad. When is enough enough?

Because the choice is this: a future full of further innocent death in return for your right to carry a weapon you will never use.

guns save more lives then they take. Especially when you consider that most of the lives being taken are criminals. Criminals killing criminals...oh no we must stop the innocents being killed by disarming the public so that these criminals can kill them even easier. sorry but you fail

Talk to any cop and they will tell you that even with shady gun dealers and gun shows, the majority of guns still used in crimes where a round was discharged, are stolen from legal gun owners.

So in the end, the only way to truly make it more difficult to get these automatic rifles, which in my opinion nobody needs, is to make them illegal to own for private citizens. That, with a further crackdown on gun running rings, shady dealers, and 2nd amendment crazy gun show participators who end up selling too many guns to one single person, as well as to the wrong persons, is perhaps the only way to even begin to put a dent in a major problem.

There is no reason our police departments need to be outgunned, and arming them with automatic rifles isn't really an answer to the problem.

wait what? so they way to end illegal arms in the hands of criminals is to turn tens of thousands of americans who depend on firearms for their everyday safety into criminals because they need a gun whether is legal or not and criminals will have them anyways. To also turn millions of americans into criminals who refuse to give up their arms whether a stupid law says so or not. there are over 300+ million firearms in this country, as soon as a law comes to prohibit private ownership, you are going to see a huge chunk of those arms becoming "lost in a boating accident". Seriously you can outlaw something that the majority of the public approves of and expect them to obey the law. Remember prohibition? once you outlaw something like firearms, all you do is make illegal traffic of them a very lucrative business which will massive expand organized/ gang crime around the country. outlawing firearms will result in massive body counts and bloodbaths, and would be the single most damaging peice of legislation this country ever saw.

if you want to see Waco texas and ruby ridge repeated 100,000 times around the country, then be my guest.

It is genuinely a shame when one cannot even walk in his own country without the fear of getting shot and mistaken for a burglar. Vigilantism.

this is not a common occurance. most american cities are as safe or safer then those in europe, only a few core urban cities will drastically skew the crimerate.

I'm not saying we should abolish guns, guns are like pacifiers for Americans, and it's logistically impossible anyway. Just ****ing bring it under control at least, so students and children stop getting killed by complete retards. I feel bitter that an innocent young girl died in such a terrible and completely avoidable way. You've got to keep more tracks on the sale of guns to stop the illegal trades. That does not violate your precious 2nd amendment.

you can not legislate away crimes like this. They barely even register on guncrime statistics because they are rare. if someone wants to slaughter people, they will find a way.

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoo...statistics.htm

But who am I to say Americans should lay off the weaponry a little? It's their country. They have the FREEDOM to have their kids killed by morons, loons and idiots.

those statistics are horse is what they are. First off all more then 50% of firearm related deaths are suicides. next you have the bulk of those being killed are gang members. there is not 3,000+ kids getting shot "on their way to school" every year. instead you have kids either blowing their brains out or killing other kids in turf wars. Since the link wont say where exactly they got their information we have to assume its full of crap.
in 2002 there were 10,808 murders with a firearm. this is 3.8 per 100,000.

If you want to see where kids might be the most at risk for violence, then all you have to do is look at the figures posted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which shows that homicide rates national are around 9 per 100,000. This rates has changed very little in 25 years. Now you compared the homicide rate for teens of all races in rural areas are they are nearly zero. In contrast black males age 15-19 in core urban areas have a homicide rate of 160 per 100,000. These statistics are very puzzling when you consider that it’s the rural kids who have the most ready access to firearms while the black males in the core urban cities are most likely living under very strict gun control laws.

When children and guns come into play as accidental deaths, most people tend to lose a bit of perspective. Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. (2001) speaks about public health concerns and firearms. He states that children ages 14 to 15 years are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than from gun accidents.

James Jacobs (2002) found in his study that nations with the strictest gun control have substantially higher murder rates than comparative nations with lax gun control. The study focused on 9 European nations with the lowest firearm ownership rates in Europe and found that they have a murder rate three times higher then nations with the highest firearms ownership. This might seem to support a statement often widely used that “people kill people and not guns’. To back it up, the Russia’s murder rate is four times that of the US with private gun ownership virtually not existent. In my mind this proves that without guns, people still find plenty of ways to kill.


so yea, your stastics are not only misleading , but full of .

Americans often argue that the second amendment defines their freedom when in fact it restrains it. Here in Europe are we free to go to school without fear of a nutcase shooting us up, without fear of a child accidentally killing itself with its father's pistol, without fear of a paranoid man shooting your child who was merely out for a night of trick-and-treat.

actually what you have is living without the fear of having any balls to stick up for yourself because you have been stripped of that right and are utterly dependent upon police which are a reactionary force. you get to live in a society in which criminals know you are unarmed and hense your much higher armed robbery and burglarly rates. You get to live in a society in which most people who are likely to do you bodily harm will be better armed then you will and if you both have a knife, then you get to fight someone who has likely used their knife alot more then you have. you get to live in a society that if someone wants to jump you and rape your wife, you get to sit by and enjoy watching it happen and live with the scars of knowing if you were more of a man and had access a better defense you could have prevented it from happening. Unlike in america where most criminals in fact do not carry guns because they know they are likely to get caught one of these days and a gun carries a heavy sentencing condition, so you have americans bringing guns to a knife fight. you have criminals who are hesitant to burglarize and rob people because they know people are armed and its very hard to tell who is and who isnt. you have thousands of lives being saved and millions of crimes being stopped each year because of armed civilians. most crime happens in mere seconds and your good police are only minutes away, which is why firearms are the single greatest tool the public has in reducing crime.

Try to imagine the horrors that these families live through and how it will scar them for the rest of their lives. It is their freedoms that you sacrifice. Freedoms of innocent bystanders for a piece of weaponry that is USELESS when push comes to shove. It is ridiculous how shortsighted the second amendent, and those who defend it, is.

actually unlike you, I actually have the statistics to prove that you argument is completely false, but thanks for being lazy and doing nothing to backup your statements.

But this is not a lesson that you will take on good faith. This is a lesson that you will learn only by the shedding of more blood. As my grandfather often said: Those who don't want to learn by listening, will learn by feeling.

actually the lesson we learned is not to follow europes lead, because not only do your notions not work here, but the never really worked.

First off, let me ask you the amount of times where americans have had to protect themselves from authoritarian governments.

if you knew anything about america, the reason we havent had a major rebellions ( and yes, not including the revolution we have had several small scale rebellions where people have taken up arms against the government) is because our founding fathers put into place the means to prevent an authoritarian govt from rising up. All of our civil rights are there to protect us from the govt and the 2nd amendment is there to ensure those rights



please I do encourage anybody to challenge me on this issues because I have not seen in this thread, or any other gun control debates on this forum and arguement that can hold water for imposing a complete ban or stricter gun controls.

I leave you with a quote from one of the brightest individuals on this forum

Lifestyles are just different here, and the vast majority of Europeans just dont get that. You have this idea of how the world is and how it should be because of how things work over there, and you try to stick the rest of the world into that paradigm. You do it with everything, from cars to politics, from computers to airplanes, from hotel rooms to mass transit.Its the biggest inferiority complex there is, and they have been that way for centuries.

[mrmouth]

wait what? so they way to end illegal arms in the hands of criminals is to turn tens of thousands of americans who depend on firearms for their everyday safety into criminals because they need a gun whether is legal or not and criminals will have them anyways. To also turn millions of americans into criminals who refuse to give up their arms whether a stupid law says so or not. there are over 300+ million firearms in this country, as soon as a law comes to prohibit private ownership, you are going to see a huge chunk of those arms becoming "lost in a boating accident". Seriously you can outlaw something that the majority of the public approves of and expect them to obey the law. Remember prohibition? once you outlaw something like firearms, all you do is make illegal traffic of them a very lucrative business which will massive expand organized/ gang crime around the country. outlawing firearms will result in massive body counts and bloodbaths, and would be the single most damaging peice of legislation this country ever saw.

If you depend on an automatic rifle for protection then that's your business. Like I said, I don't see the need to own one. My one single handgun is plenty.

In all actuality its just another toy. You shoot stumps on the weekend with these things, that's all. Nobody I know who owns a semi or full auto rifle makes it part of their home defense.

The majority of the public don't want their neighbors to own an automatic rifle. They remain legal because of politicians and campaign contributions. If there ever was a true representation of what the people wanted they would be illegal.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Good post scheuch.

If you depend on an automatic rifle for protection then that's your business. Like I said, I don't see the need to own one. My one single handgun is plenty.

To each his own.

In all actuality its just another toy. You shoot stumps on the weekend with these things, that's all. Nobody I know who owns a semi or full auto rifle makes it part of their home defense.

I use a handgun as my primary weapon as well, but if it did happen to be needed, I have other weapons. Not very probable, but certainly possible. Consider the police shootout in LA with the bank robbers several years ago.

The majority of the public don't want their neighbors to own an automatic rifle. They remain legal because of politicians and campaign contributions. If there ever was a true representation of what the people wanted they would be illegal.

I will disagree with that, but if that is the route you want to take, then do it properly, through an amendment to the Constitution. But the politicians against gun ownership know there is no way in hell they will get a 2/3 vote of both House, Senate, and states, so they play on everyone's emotions and write this ridiculous and proven unconstitutional bans such as the DC handgun ban.

[Gelgoog]

[QUOTE=BarnabyJones;3929771]If you depend on an automatic rifle for protection then that's your business. Like I said, I don't see the need to own one. My one single handgun is plenty. /QUOTE]

your correct, in crime prevention, semi-automatic sporting rifles ( they are not assualt rifles) have very little purpose. They also play a very remote roll within the criminal element. few crimes occur with rifles just because they are more inconvenient and harder to hide. Rifles on the other hand represent a symbolic and real threat against an authoritarian government. in open conflict against the gov, a pistol would be of much less usage, but sine neither criminal usage or a rebellion is likely then there is no need to ban them. instead they meerly act as a way for americans to spend more money into the economy and sit in the closet for a day in which they may come of use.

The majority of the public don't want their neighbors to own an automatic rifle. They remain legal because of politicians and campaign contributions. If there ever was a true representation of what the people wanted they would be illegal.

prove it. source please.

[Каие]

this is not a common occurance. most american cities are as safe or safer then those in europe, only a few core urban cities will drastically skew the crimerate.

According to these;

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoo...statistics.htm

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week.

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

A child is 100 times more likely to get shot up in the USA then in Britain.

you can not legislate away crimes like this. They barely even register on guncrime statistics because they are rare. if someone wants to slaughter people, they will find a way.

If their were stricter Gun controls, he wouldn't have had a gun.
a) He had an illegal gun
b) He illegally had it

Due to crap checks and controls things like this can happen.

Illinois baby obtains gun permit

Bubba Ludwig may only be 10 months old, but he has already successfully obtained a gun licence in the US state of Illinois.

Bubba's father, Howard Ludwig, applied on his behalf after his grandfather gave him a shotgun as an heirloom.Mr Ludwig said he had not expected to succeed, but he filled in the online form, paid $5 and the licence was his.

US gun laws are regularly the subject of fierce debate, renewed recently after April's Virginia Tech killings. Gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to exploit a loophole in Virginia state law and obtain weapons despite having a history of mental illness. The loophole was later closed.

The licence includes a picture of a toothless Bubba and a squiggle that represents his best attempt at a signature.

In an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Mr Ludwig, 30, said that he expected the application to be turned down. Two rejections did in fact come, he said, but both related to technical problems - on one application he forgot to tick a box stating his son was a US citizen - rather than Bubba's youth. His third attempt was rewarded with a state firearm owner's identification card (FOID), complete with details of Bubba's height, weight and date of birth.

Illinois gun laws are said to be among the strictest in the US.

But Illinois State Police, who oversee the application process, said that they had followed the law in this case."Does a 10-month-old need a FOID card? No, but there are no restrictions under the act regarding age of applicants," the Associated Press news agency quoted Lt Scott Compton as saying.

Mr Ludwig said Bubba's gun would likely remain at his grandfather's house until he was 14. "I'm not about to approve any unsupervised hunting or trap shooting for Bubba," he wrote in the Chicago daily. "Still, I'm glad he was able to get his FOID card. It makes an adorable addition to his baby book."

The highlighted parts are to signify "wtf!" The strictest gun laws...you can still get one when 14...a baby got one...his picture was on it...application turned down 3 times not because he was a baby but of minor details.

Seriously? For the sake of credibility, you need to sort that **** out. On federal level.

[MaximiIian]

Responsible as you may be, owning a gun is still pointless. An archaic law from an age long gone. It's best abolished as soon as possible.

Hell no. I like the right of owning a firearm, and your call for a revocation of my civil rights disgusts and enrages me.
Who the do you think you are that you can tell me what I should or should not own?