Teen Shot Ghost Hunting...

[Guardian Angel of Fire]

I think it's semplicistick blaming the paranormal show. If it wasnt that, it would be something else.

Personally? I would blame youthness instead. Young people do that kind of stuff, either for the thrill or for the fun or maybe for something else reason.

I dont think, paranormal show is to blame. Sorry.

You know thats the same thing for how they blamed columbine on video games. I did a short interview/report for a class project in one of my video classes. It's really sad when someone takes a simple thing and blames it for the biggest events that have happened in human history. Like as i said when they blamed Columbine on Violent Video games, sure some people at certain ages shouldn't be playing certain video games because they havn't truely matured enough for understanding between reality and video games. Also this is another case of deciphering between whats real and what we percieve as to be real. Simply said my example of using columbine, only thing to blame were the people who negelected the young kids and failed to recognize that the poor kids were slowly going down hill due to acts of other people against them.

[LadyHay]

The thing about placing blame on those "paranormal shows" is that in these paranormal shows, they are obviously not trespassers or people who hang out in cemeteries hoping to capture the almighty "orb". Usually the people in these shows obviously have fair and legit permission to enter these buildings.

IMO, its those groups on the internet who DO tromp illegally through cemeteries or groups who talk about illegal or illicit entry to "abandoned" buildings, as I have seen before on sites like this one.

A few years ago, here on UM, there was a thread regarding bringing firearms on "investigations" ie. into abandoned homes, cemeteries, or anywhere there may be trespassing or danger of the human kind. That thread is another fine example of what can and does happen when people are doing something they know they shouldn't be. We had an investigator in the US killed by being hit by a car because his group thought it smart to ask members to wear black so that they wouldn't be seen trespassing into the cemetery. They didn't take into account the fact that they had to walk along a busy road to get there.

This negative crap also harms the field immensely. People lump us all together as "those meddling kids".

So I think its fair for Aanica to bring this issue to the forefront as a real problem. Maybe for different reasons but I think the main thrust here is safety.

[Aanica]

The thing about placing blame on those "paranormal shows" is that in these paranormal shows, they are obviously not trespassers or people who hang out in cemeteries hoping to capture the almighty "orb". Usually the people in these shows obviously have fair and legit permission to enter these buildings.

IMO, its those groups on the internet who DO tromp illegally through cemeteries or groups who talk about illegal or illicit entry to "abandoned" buildings, as I have seen before on sites like this one.

A few years ago, here on UM, there was a thread regarding bringing firearms on "investigations" ie. into abandoned homes, cemeteries, or anywhere there may be trespassing or danger of the human kind. That thread is another fine example of what can and does happen when people are doing something they know they shouldn't be. We had an investigator in the US killed by being hit by a car because his group thought it smart to ask members to wear black so that they wouldn't be seen trespassing into the cemetery. They didn't take into account the fact that they had to walk along a busy road to get there.

This negative crap also harms the field immensely. People lump us all together as "those meddling kids".

So I think its fair for Aanica to bring this issue to the forefront as a real problem. Maybe for different reasons but I think the main thrust here is safety.

Yes Ladyhay that is the only point, thanks

[LadyHay]

Yes Ladyhay that is the only point, thanks

N-E time my sweets!

[Mr Supertypo]

The thing about placing blame on those "paranormal shows" is that in these paranormal shows, they are obviously not trespassers or people who hang out in cemeteries hoping to capture the almighty "orb". Usually the people in these shows obviously have fair and legit permission to enter these buildings.

IMO, its those groups on the internet who DO tromp illegally through cemeteries or groups who talk about illegal or illicit entry to "abandoned" buildings, as I have seen before on sites like this one.

A few years ago, here on UM, there was a thread regarding bringing firearms on "investigations" ie. into abandoned homes, cemeteries, or anywhere there may be trespassing or danger of the human kind. That thread is another fine example of what can and does happen when people are doing something they know they shouldn't be. We had an investigator in the US killed by being hit by a car because his group thought it smart to ask members to wear black so that they wouldn't be seen trespassing into the cemetery. They didn't take into account the fact that they had to walk along a busy road to get there.

This negative crap also harms the field immensely. People lump us all together as "those meddling kids".

So I think its fair for Aanica to bring this issue to the forefront as a real problem. Maybe for different reasons but I think the main thrust here is safety.

there are also people who takes firearms to soccermatch. I still dont see anything worth of attention, beside perhaps removing the fire weapons.

Fire weapons, THAT is the true problem, I wonder why nobody mention this

Still I dont see anything serious out of this discussion, what is your point Aanica? care to answer? remember this is a discussion group, not a sectarian propaganda field.

Sorry to say, but I am puzzled on the reason about why some people tryes to FOKUS away from the true problem, who is not paranormal state or whatever. But the lack of control on the distribution of firearms (the mad man shot the girl, remember?). Well what do you say about this? do you propose any solution?

ty.

[Mr Supertypo]

The thing about placing blame on those "paranormal shows" is that in these paranormal shows, they are obviously not trespassers or people who hang out in cemeteries hoping to capture the almighty "orb". Usually the people in these shows obviously have fair and legit permission to enter these buildings.

Lady, kids do this kind of thing, I did that to...and that was long time BEFORE any paranormal show. So the mentioned show is not a problem. If you want to identify something more usefull and less "timewasting" let's fokus on the distribution of fire arms, remember if the guy didnt pull the trigger, the girl wouldn be shot. Or let's fokus on the boldness of the youth...but blaming a TV show, IMO is just lack of realism....and that is just as dangerous.

ciao

[TwilightBandit]

i would shot up in the air.

[LadyHay]

Lady, kids do this kind of thing, I did that to...and that was long time BEFORE any paranormal show. So the mentioned show is not a problem. If you want to identify something more usefull and less "timewasting" let's fokus on the distribution of fire arms, remember if the guy didnt pull the trigger, the girl wouldn be shot. Or let's fokus on the boldness of the youth...but blaming a TV show, IMO is just lack of realism....and that is just as dangerous.

ciao

Yes, and that's what I'm saying in a way. But here in Ghosts and Hauntings - we're talking (or some of us are) about some of the dangers that can befall "ghost hunters" who do not practice safety.

I did also agree that it isn't necessarily these TV shows as, and I mentioned it in my earlier post, these shows always have obvious permission to be filming where they are. Its the thrill seekers that I'm talking about. The ones who are reckless and stupid at times.

Also, it isn't just the boldness of youth - its grown adults.

[Mr Supertypo]

Yes, and that's what I'm saying in a way. But here in Ghosts and Hauntings - we're talking (or some of us are) about some of the dangers that can befall "ghost hunters" who do not practice safety.

anything can be dangerous if done whithout safety....

I did also agree that it isn't necessarily these TV shows as, and I mentioned it in my earlier post, these shows always have obvious permission to be filming where they are. Its the thrill seekers that I'm talking about. The ones who are reckless and stupid at times.

I agree, that's also my point. Tv show's has nothing to do whith this. Bold and stupid people has always been, and there will always be. TV or not TV.

Also, it isn't just the boldness of youth - its grown adults.

Many adults act and think like kids...

edit...stupid typo.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Giorgio1dk

[LadyHay]

anything can be dangerous if done whithout safety....

I agree, that's also my point. Tv show's has nothing to do whith this. Bold and stupid people has always been, and there will always be. TV or not TV.

Many adults act and think like kids...

edit...stupid typo.

Oooookay, so then... we agree?

[randomhit10]

A misfortune truly, a young life forever changed chasing after the glory of Ghost hunting. I expect we shall see more of this with TV glamorizing paranormal investigations....

LINK...

I know this is an older article but it still has relevance today...

it is a crazy world....

randomhit10

[Blueguardian]

I believe that he should have shot the rifle into the air if he was trying to scare them away, they shouldn't really be on the property without permission in the first place, it gives a bad name to investigators. This all could have been avoided if they had of asked permission, there is also a good chance that the house isnt even haunted, just rumours made up by some idiot with no time, who knows.

[Guardian Angel of Fire]

I believe that he should have shot the rifle into the air if he was trying to scare them away, they shouldn't really be on the property without permission in the first place, it gives a bad name to investigators. This all could have been avoided if they had of asked permission, there is also a good chance that the house isnt even haunted, just rumours made up by some idiot with no time, who knows.

It all could of been avoided if he didn't fire the gun at all but kept it on him incase approaching inside the house...If you shoot someone who comes to your house to kill you before they come in and threaten, it's considered Homicide. Really i dont understand why people use guns as mean of force to scare someone off their property.

[chaoszerg]

It all could of been avoided if he didn't fire the gun at all but kept it on him incase approaching inside the house...If you shoot someone who comes to your house to kill you before they come in and threaten, it's considered Homicide. Really i dont understand why people use guns as mean of force to scare someone off their property.

Yes it could have been avoided if he did not fire his Gun at all, but it was still partly there fault for trespassing and then going back again after they got spooked the first time. Like I said the man was a idiot but the moronic teens have to share half the blame for being morons.

[Guardian Angel of Fire]

Yes it could have been avoided if he did not fire his Gun at all, but it was still partly there fault for trespassing and then going back again after they got spooked the first time. Like I said the man was a idiot but the moronic teens have to share half the blame for being morons.

Well you don't expect much from the teens because after all, there teens so you gotta understand we were all there at one point and sort of like that.

[louie]

Why do they even watch those crappy ghost hunter shows an try do it themselves. those shows never find anything except a creaky floorboard or a dustball or a table that moves a few centimeteres an they try convince you something happened.

and also you cant go on someones property an just walk around at night what do u think they will think. thief bang bang.

if the place is deserted fine if not keep out or get permission.

[MasterPo]

As awful as it is, if the law in that place allows for the use of deadly force to protect your property and this investigator was tresspassing on the man's land it goes to show the risks.

Even without the law per se, I don't put it passed many home owners to do similar if they feel their home and family is under pending attack.

[Guardian Angel of Fire]

I re-read the story and it dosn't state anywhere that the man exactly owned the land, but did have property there. Also considering that a graveyard was directly across from his home. One thing that gets me is that why even shoot at the car as they drive by, the kid was struck in the head and the man claims to have aimed at the tires, there is quiet a difference in the space between (if kid was sitting up) the kid's head and the tires. But it's silly cause even if you shoot out one of their tires, you could cause them to have an accident and still be held liable on charges of Neglagent Homicide. Meaning a non-intentional murder.

[JustNormal]

As awful as it is, if the law in that place allows for the use of deadly force to protect your property and this investigator was tresspassing on the man's land it goes to show the risks.

Even without the law per se, I don't put it passed many home owners to do similar if they feel their home and family is under pending attack.

Thats true but a couple teenage girls looking for ghosts, Im sure is not considered an attack of any sort. They were kids, all he had to do is call the police or yell at them. They were looking for ghosts like nearly every kid does, and trespassing doesnt equal shooting at a car when its leaving, and then driving by on their way out of there. He was WRONG and thats why he is in prison...JMO..JN

[Mr Supertypo]

Oooookay, so then... we agree?

do we need to disagree for speak together?

[Pauly Dangerously]

For clarification, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to own firearms, not shoot people. The Ohio Revised Code states that a person using deadly force must provide incontrovertable proof that they had reason to believe that their life was in danger. In the event of a home invasion, which this was not, a citizen has the resposibility to escape ( yes, even your own residence) if at all possible. Only in the event that your home is being invaded, and you can't leave the location to call for help, do you have the right to use deadly force, and even in that case, you still have to convince the police you felt your life was in danger. A heavily armed, mentally unstable forty year old man, was questioned by police, and couldn't prove he felt he was in danger from a sixteen year old girl who was driving away from his property.

[LadyHay]

For clarification, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to own firearms, not shoot people. The Ohio Revised Code states that a person using deadly force must provide incontrovertable proof that they had reason to believe that their life was in danger. In the event of a home invasion, which this was not, a citizen has the resposibility to escape ( yes, even your own residence) if at all possible. Only in the event that your home is being invaded, and you can't leave the location to call for help, do you have the right to use deadly force, and even in that case, you still have to convince the police you felt your life was in danger. A heavily armed, mentally unstable forty year old man, was questioned by police, and couldn't prove he felt he was in danger from a sixteen year old girl who was driving away from his property.

Excellent clarification. It should be pointed out also that she wasn't even ON his property when she was shot.

[Guardian Angel of Fire]

Excellent clarification. It should be pointed out also that she wasn't even ON his property when she was shot.

Good Point, Percisely! She remained in the car, it was the young man who left the car, and the car is on city property, even if she stood on the sidewalk, that's still city property. Plus if it's his property, does he have 100% ownership of it, or share with the bank? It's just things you think of when you define "My Property."

[Michelle]

Plus if it's his property, does he have 100% ownership of it, or share with the bank? It's just things you think of when you define "My Property."

That doesn't make any difference. Even if you are renting the landlord cannot come onto "your property" without your permission unless it's an emergencey to fix something.

[Guardian Angel of Fire]

That doesn't make any difference. Even if you are renting the landlord cannot come onto "your property" without your permission unless it's an emergencey to fix something.

Actually wrong, the Landlord owns the property and leasing means your renting it out from them for a certain amount of time. The landlord can kick anyone from the property at any given time if she/he feels something illegal is being done.

It's like if my dad rented the house out to someone for a summer, they don't own the house, they're simply renting it out.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Guardian Angel of Fire