14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots armed intruder

[Car Knocker]

PHOENIX (AP) - A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell Friday afternoon, Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said.

The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize the woman.

Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom.

When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

The woman who rang the home's doorbell got away.

Holmes hailed the teen's actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.

"The police and indeed our community does not ever want to see a situation where a teenager of that age has to take a weapon to protect his family ... but this young man did exactly what he should have done," he said. "I'm not sure he gave full thought about what he had to do. He just acted."

Holmes said that the gun the teen grabbed was his father's, but did not know whether the boy had been trained to use it.

He said the family, whose names were not released, is declining to speak to reporters about the ordeal, saying that they "are all pretty traumatized."

"The dad was pretty much out of his mind with distress, officers couldn't even talk to him," Holmes said. "It's going to take them a while to recover mentally."

He said police don't yet know what the suspect's intentions were and that will be one of the first questions they ask him when he is well enough to talk.

"This was mid-block in a neighborhood, at 4:30 in the afternoon in summertime and children are there," he said. "They just took a heck of a gamble for this particular house, and we've got to try to figure out why."

Holmes added that the family is lucky that the teen acted so swiftly and effectively.

"As ugly as this is, and as much as this family is going through, we don't have injured children on our hands," he said.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=20964830
************************************************************************
Outstanding actions by the young man and kudos to the police department for their positive attitude about the incident!

[My Trigger Guard]

I can't say how outstanding this is good for that kid. But worry how a unnattended child has access to firearms..... And if anything comes of it like the father being brought up on charges. Not saying I agree with it, but you have to know what I mean.

[divegeek]

I can't say how outstanding this is good for that kid. But worry how a unnattended child has access to firearms..... And if anything comes of it like the father being brought up on charges. Not saying I agree with it, but you have to know what I mean.

I know what you mean. I don't think the father is in any danger... but if something different had happened with the gun, he could have been. He apparently believed that it was safe to leave the gun accessible to his kids, perhaps because he knew them well and knew that they knew how to be safe and responsible, or perhaps because he was careless and negligent. This is one of those cases where the prior decisions will be interpreted in light of the posterior outcome.

The father took a risk, and it ended well. It could have gone differently. Did he make a good choice? We can't truly say what the odds of each outcome were. Maybe he can.

[Jesse 8]

This is nothing but good. I'm sick of modern thinking that has lead to the mantra 'all guns must be locked up when an adult isn't around, or else'. Rubbish. Look back a hundred years, kids have historically always had firearm access, and this is precisely why. It's also why kids need to learn to drive as soon as they can reach the pedals. You never know when they will need to help dad/mom in an emergency situation. This kid deserves a medal, along with the parents who had the(I assume) presence of mind to allow their child access to a firearm while they were away. Think of what could've happened, the family could know what TRUE distress is. Ok, rant over. Thanks for reading

[Hawk87]

Good for the kid. Still not sure how I feel about kids having access to firearms, but I guess it depends on the kid. Honestly that's where the judgement of the parent has to come in (as well as the teaching of the kids). It is really tragic when they don't make the right call though, so it is not a decision that should be taken lightly.

It doesn't really matter in my case, my wife has made up her mind that kids shouldn't have access to guns... If I push it I have a feeling she is going to be a lot less understanding of my guns...

[bagpiper]

I can't say how outstanding this is good for that kid. But worry how a unnattended child has access to firearms..... And if anything comes of it like the father being brought up on charges. Not saying I agree with it, but you have to know what I mean.

How times have changed. I (and I believe several generations on both sides preceding me) was raised in a home full of guns, and not a single gun safe, trigger lock, or other such "safety device" anywhere in the home. The only concern we had about the guns was theft, not misuse by a child, much less an adolescent. My step-father's solution to a risk of theft was to stash the guns throughout the home on the theory that a burglar was less likely to find all of them that way.

Those that we shot most often, lived in his closet. We'd come home from shooting, clean the guns, and then go put them away in his closet. One day when I was about 10, we came home from shooting, we cleaned my .22, and he told me to go put it in my closet. By the time I was 12, a 12 gauge joined the .22 in my closet. A couple of boxes of ammo for each lived in my dresser across the room. A handgun joined the mix when I was about 17.

In my humble opinion, any young person old enough to entrust with the care and safety of younger siblings while the parents are away from the home for more than about 15 minutes, should be trustable (it's a real word I say) with access to self/home-defense firearms. My medicine cabinet isn't locked. Neither are the kitchen knives, household chemicals, gasoline, etc. My firearms are kept locked up to prevent theft, and to avoid risk to children too young to have been properly trained YET.

Charles

[Hawk87]

I can't say how outstanding this is good for that kid. But worry how a unnattended child has access to firearms..... And if anything comes of it like the father being brought up on charges. Not saying I agree with it, but you have to know what I mean.

How times have changed. I (and I believe several generations on both sides preceding me) was raised in a home full of guns, and not a single gun safe, trigger lock, or other such "safety device" anywhere in the home. The only concern we had about the guns was theft, not misuse by a child, much less an adolescent. My step-father's solution to a risk of theft was to stash the guns throughout the home on the theory that a burglar was less likely to find all of them that way.

Those that we shot most often, lived in his closet. We'd come home from shooting, clean the guns, and then go put them away in his closet. One day when I was about 10, we came home from shooting, we cleaned my .22, and he told me to go put it in my closet. By the time I was 12, a 12 gauge joined the .22 in my closet. A couple of boxes of ammo for each lived in my dresser across the room. A handgun joined the mix when I was about 17.

In my humble opinion, any young person old enough to entrust with the care and safety of younger siblings while the parents are away from the home for more than about 15 minutes, should be trustable (it's a real word I say) with access to self/home-defense firearms. My medicine cabinet isn't locked. Neither are the kitchen knives, household chemicals, gasoline, etc. My firearms are kept locked up to prevent theft, and to avoid risk to children too young to have been properly trained YET.

Charles

So I have a hypothetical question for you. Say that you have your kids have a family history of depression. You haven't seen any signs in your kids, but then people don't always see the signs. We also know that genetics can predispose people to depression. Would you still make guns easily available to the kids?

[Jesse 8]

I have a question to you hawk. Same situation, do you lock up the meds, deny a DL, keep any spare rope hidden, lock the knifes up? Keep the cleaning supplies for the house in your trunk?

[DaKnife]

Growing up My siblings and I always knew where dad's (and ours) guns were kept, for most of our childhood and teen years the long rifles and shotgun were always under our parents beds and the ammo downstairs. The handguns were in dad's dresser. As we got older dad got a gun cabinet with a nice glass front (no lock). Finally after DG and I were out of the house, dad purchased a gun safe. Not because he didn't trust us, but because he had some concerns about some of our youngest brothers friends. Yet amazingly enough not once in all those years did one of those guns crawl out of the dresser or from under the bed and force us kids to play with it.

It's called teaching your children what guns are, what they do and how to properly handle them. If and I say IF someone starts showing the behaviors indicating depression, then consider locking them em up(the kids not the guns j/k), but Bagpiper is 100% right on. Your depression scenario is just a strawman argument based on a what if. Well we can all play the "What if" game. What if you've safely secured your firearms and the Russians invade (ala Red Dawn) and you kids are the only ones in position to start the rebellion, but the guns are all locked and the Ruskies have already detained/killed you. Or you are out on the town with your spouse and your sharpshooting teen is home with the younger kids when a murder kicks in the door, but again all the guns, knives, swords and baseball bats with which to defend himself and his younger siblings are locked away for safe keeping (cause Aunt Tilly was slightly depressed last week). The Russian invasion is realllllly far fetched, the second scenario not so much. In fact this thread is about just such a situation, but one where the parents chose the better option of the "What if" scenario.

Generations have grown up with firearms readily available, if anything it's the growing scarcity, with them having to always be locked and hidden that has made them a greater risk. It used to be parents didn't worry about the kids coming across a gun in the home or at a friends home, because the kids, and the friends knew to leave them alone. Now we have neighborhoods full of kids who never see a gun other than on screen. They don't know what to do, and thus the risk. Those kids who grow up with firearms aren't the ones at risk, it's their friends who don't know. Add in the theft risk and thus the current standard of locking em up.

[Jesse 8]

Right on. We all agree that if someone wants to go on a killing spree with a firearm, they will do so. Gun laws will not, cannot, stop them. Same thing here. If someone really wants to off themselves, you have 2 choices, spend them to a mental institution on suicide watch, or do your best, understanding that on your own, you can't stop them. I fully support a parent's right to keep their guns away from their kids, not everyone can take the time to properly instruct their kids about guns.

What I disagree with is the media's obsession with blaming the gun or parent. 'If only they had locked up that evil murderous object, none of this would've happened!' False. When time is on your side...WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY. Just like with firearm ownership, allowing responsible children access to guns far outweighs the occasional tragedies that happen because of it. Without these parents' decision, this story would've had a much more sadistic title.

[quychang]

Regardless of the circumstances in having the gun available to him, the boy did exactly the right thing. I don't see anyone here argueing that point, and in my mind there's no question.

I would, however, be somewhat concerned about the boy's reaction to having had to do that. If I have to shoot someone, it's going to take an emotional tole. Of course I'll live with it, but I'm not 14. I would probably seriouosly consider some counselling if it were my son, as proud of him as I would be.

Mel

[bagpiper]

So I have a hypothetical question for you. Say that you have your kids have a family history of depression. You haven't seen any signs in your kids, but then people don't always see the signs. We also know that genetics can predispose people to depression. Would you still make guns easily available to the kids?

In the absence of very strong evidence to the contrary, I believe that parents are in the best position to determine what is in the best interest of their children. And so I tend to be loathe to second guess parenting decisions.

In the raising of my own children, I look not only to my own experiences, and to my best ability to reason out what my children need, but I also appeal to that God who created my children before He entrusted them to me for their mortal childhood. In His tender mercies, He guides my wife and me in how to best parent our children. But He deals with our actual circumstances, and is not prone (in my experience) to telling me what to do about situations that do not actually exist. So it is difficult to answer specifics regarding hypotheticals and my children.

That said, if I had reason (or spiritual promptings) that indicated I needed to further restrict access to my firearms I would do so. I would also heed reason (or promptings) to have greater limits on access to medications, knives, car keys, household chemicals, certain friends or associates, the internet (pretty tight limits there already), etc, etc, etc.

If you were to search my posts, you'd find I've related how on a couple of occasions I've temporarily stored firearms for family members and friends who decided they needed those guns not to be in their homes for a season. I believe you'll also find me relating that I am frequently the designated driver for business associates following business meals where they choose to imbibe. This, even though I've never seen them drink anywhere near enough to be over the legal limit. They and I believe in an excess of caution in that area.

I have not related previously my experience of very deliberately removing all access to car keys when a relative was clearly intoxicated.

I grew up with ready access to firearms and ammunition. Until I was old enough to take myself (16 and a driver license so as to be able to drive to an appropriate location to plink), my step-father took me shooting most any time I wanted to. There was nothing at all mysterious or unknown about firearms. Shooting was fun, but it also meant some time cleaning afterwards. Handling a gun was akin to handling a chain saw, or hatchet, pocket knife, or garden sprayer loaded up with pesticides: a tool with potential hazards to be properly respected.

I also grew up riding horses, hiking, camping, water skiing, snow skiing, riding bicycles all over town without adult supervision (admittedly, a smaller, less urban town than any along the Great SL area these days), riding motorcycles and three-wheelers and snowmobiles, driving tractors and trucks on my step-father's family's farm, using fireworks, chasing lizards, swimming in watering holes, working later at night on school nights than federal law now permits and using more dangerous power equipment than now allowed for those younger than 40 it seems, dating girls, and otherwise generally enjoying life as a young boy, an adolescent, and then a young man. It has only been since the birth of my own children that I've come to appreciate what a challenge it must have been for my mother (and what a blessing to me) to allow me such a range of experiences. There were the usual childhood injuries, but thankfully nothing too serious. I am who I am, largely because of the very experiences in my youth that society and law now seem so anxious to prevent. Search my posts for a very interesting law article on "Free Range Parenting" written by the lawyer brother of a co-worker. Very interesting, and some great food for thought.

In the subject of this thread, all "what ifs" or "could haves" aside, I'd say the outcome of the report--the 14 year old properly using a firearm to defend himself and younger siblings from a forced, criminal entry into their home--is prima facia evidence that the boy's parents made exactly the right decision in allowing him access to the firearm and ammunition. That there are, sadly, some number of incidents each year that strongly suggest parents did not properly secure their firearms, or perhaps more accurately in many cases, did not properly educate their children, does not change this account.

Parents, like all gun owners, need to make decisions regarding the storage of their firearms that are appropriate to their personal situations. And that means knowing their situation--their children--intimately. Not all 14 year olds should have access to a handgun. But demonstrably, there are at least some who can not only handle that responsibility, but who thankfully had the access when they needed it.

Charles

[My Trigger Guard]

I think people mis understand my statement. Look I agree with you 200 years ago a 7 year old was expected to go out and shoot a few bunnies for dinner. I do not remember papers writing about some sort of children gun accidents, of course 200 years ago the papers where not as liberal. Also 200 years ago if a child with a firearm did do something wrong I do not think that the parent went to jail for it, I could be wrong on that one but I do not think so.

And we can say each kid to his own and his training, yet I was a teenager and kids will do stupid stuff. Lets not forget the kids freinds either. I have often thought about if I had kids would I feel comfortable allowing them access to my arms without my presence. I can not in all honesty say I could in good consience. I was a kid once I remember all the bad decisions I made.

Ultimatly imho you all could argue about this till the end of time. The decision must come down to the parent on a kid by kid basis, its a decision that could be life altering in a good or bad way. But make no mistake the risk all lies in the parent and no one else, thus it has to be there decision. You can throw out a hundred what if's, it still doesnt change the above.

For me I do not know I am not a dad as of yet, but I do not think I could do it in good faith.

Again good for that kid though, NRA needs to make him a poster child.

[faydee]

I agree 100% with bagpiper and couldnt have said it better myself...

[RustyShackleford]

Senator Hatch voted for Manditory Trigger locks to keep firearms away from minors....Just say'in.