Texas Boy, 7, Dies ... Shot for Trespassing

[Hum]

HOUSTON (AP) -- A 7-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died Saturday, authorities said.

Donald Coffey Jr. died Saturday morning at a Houston hospital, less than two days after the boy was struck in the head by shotgun pellets, Liberty County Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.

Sheila Muhs and her husband, Gayle Muhs, both 45, were charged with second-degree felony counts of aggravated assault in the shootings Thursday. They were being held at Liberty County Jail with bail set at $25,000 each and had not yet retained an attorney, Bishop said.

Bishop said the district attorney could upgrade the charges to murder on Monday, but investigators were ''still trying to get the circumstances behind the incident.''

The boy, his 5-year-old sister, their father and a family friend were off-roading near a residential area about 40 miles northeast of Houston when they were shot after stopping so the children could go to the bathroom.

Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property.

Bishop said the area includes a dirt road, trees and overgrown brush and that it wasn't uncommon for people to go off-roading there. The Houston Chronicle reported that a sign in front of the suspects' home reads: ''Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will.''

Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once.

DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: ''They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them.''

DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property.

Bishop said there was no indication the unarmed victims did anything threatening toward the Muhs.

Donald Coffey Sr. suffered a pellet wound in his right shoulder and his daughter, Destiny, suffered a wound to the elbow. The family friend, 30-year-old Patrick Cammack, was in serious condition Saturday with a head wound, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center spokeswoman Alex Rodriguez said.

source

[MasterC]

In before the Europeans say "This is why people having guns is bad." :rolleyes:

[Sam Symons Veteran]

I do support the right to own guns, but this is truly a tragic case and it shows how dangerous it can be :(

[uhstdnt]

they weren't even on their property and they still got shot. Reminds me of the case when some old guy shot a kid for running after the school bus on his lawn. Sad.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

It's sad and unfortunate. They should have fired a couple of warning shots to ward off any trespassers that be. Seriously, don't try to kill someone simply because they're "on your property". I'm sure they could've seen that they were firing at a family. As far as I'm aware, shotguns don't have that much range. Articles like this make me glad I live in Canada, a civilized country with effective gun laws. At least here, I don't have to worry about getting shot.

[CentralDogma]

That's life? What's life? Getting killed by some idiot rednecks? Second amendment my a**... Yeah, let's give guns to everyone and let's give them the right to shoot whoever they want.

If you didn't knowtist, the couple is being held and will probably be charged with murder. What they did was against the law, 2nd amendment or not.

And yes, your suppose to warn people about trespassing and allow them to leave before firing. Being a land owner doesn't entitle you to play your own personal deadliest game.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

I love when a Socialist paper like the NY Times rarely picks up stories of people defending themselves with guns but always print stories about gun accidents and gun crime.

Despite what happened to this poor kid, it wasn't the gun that killed him, it was the idiot rednecks who shoot at anything at moves. That couple should be put in jail for the rest of their lives to show that you can't just shoot at people who trespass. You can only shoot people who threaten your safety.

[Redmak Administrators]

I'm so glad I live in a safe place where guns are unnecessary. I never had the need to defend myself with a gun because of some threat.

I do think my town is 'safe' because guns aren't allowed. If half the population had a gun, there would be more 'accidents' like this.

[sujmano]

i was under the impression that Texas had different gun laws in relation to a persons property, like u can shoot someone if they enter your home that correct? That redneck couple really shouldn't have fired on them it wasn't even on their property.

[DELTETHISACCOUNT]

That redneck couple really shouldn't have fired on them it wasn't even on their property.

I agree entirely. I hope they both get charged for murder when Monday comes around.

[HawkMan]

Despite what happened to this poor kid, it wasn't the gun that killed him, it was the idiot rednecks who shoot at anything at moves. That couple should be put in jail for the rest of their lives to show that you can't just shoot at people who trespass. You can only shoot people who threaten your safety.

I'm pretty sure the redneck wouldn't have killed the person without the gun, Since then he would actually have to wait until the person was in range to see him before he could attack. so yeah, the gun did kill the kid.

As for the second Amendment. Wasn't that added specifically for allowing a militia. That doesn't mean you should have guns accessible for home defense and to carry in your grandma's handbag and all that. It means you could have a gun accessible in a locker in case of a revolution or invasion or whatever.

[jakem1]

It's sad and unfortunate. They should have fired a couple of warning shots to ward off any trespassers that be. Seriously, don't try to kill someone simply because they're "on your property". I'm sure they could've seen that they were firing at a family. As far as I'm aware, shotguns don't have that much range. Articles like this make me glad I live in Canada, a civilized country with effective gun laws. At least here, I don't have to worry about getting shot.

Couldn't they just ask the family to leave if they thought they were trespassing? What sort of people reach for a gun and fire warning shots when they see someone on their land?

Having a "right" to own guns is just stupid and the same thing goes for the "the gun didn't kill him, the redneck killed him" argument. Americans really get what they deserve sometimes.

[Vykranth]

An ironic thing is that a few days ago, there was this thread in RWN: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

This is the story of a college student who saved several of his fellows from rape, theft and possibily murder from two armed gunmen.

That guy is a hero: he took matters in his own hands and saved some people from deadly harm. He deserves some congratulations.

As far as I see it, he got lucky: he could have missed or be killed by one of the gunmen and the whole story would have ended in a massacre.

And now, we have that story of a 7 year old kid dead because a couple believed that there were some intruders in their property. They took matters in their own hands and their actions resulted in 3 harmed people and one dead kid.

Funny, I have used two times the expression "Take matters in one's own hands". In one case, we are talking about a hero, on the other hand, we have murderers.

My point is not against the right to bear arms. I am French, I live in a society where violence is, compared to the US, much much lower. For me, I do not feel the neccessity to arm myself. The police emergency services are efficient if ever I have to ask them for help. The right to bear arm, to have a concealed weapon when going to the college, to the mall, to store a pistol in the car glove box is something I do not understand, even if I have been several times to Texas.

Yet, the trips I have made in Texas made me realise that the US society is ****ed up from top to bottom.

There are violent gunmen who are ready to burst into a house to steal, rape and murder college students and there are people paranoid enough who are ready to shoot without warnings anyone who they think would trepass on their proprerty.

When I read that story, I thought about the posts in the thread I cited about the castle doctrine and the law-abiding citizens who are trained to use weapons. In that story, who are the law-abding citizens? Where is the castle? What lessons can be learned from that tragedy?

[Calum Veteran]

If guns were banned everywhere (apart from for military usage), murders caused by shootings wouldn't happen half as often...

I'm just saying... :)

[HacKage]

thats the thing though, ok the student could evidently see that there was danger, and took matters into his own hands as you say, and did what was necessary, but how could you possibly think that a family could put your life in danger in some way or another.They cant even attempt to say otherwise.I just cant get my head round why you would point a gun and shoot in the direction of children, absolutley no need for it.If you were going to fire warning shots you would fire into the air, but as far as I can see, these people wanted to and meant to murder this family, there is no other reason for it

[Richard Hammond]

If guns were banned everywhere (apart from for military usage), murders caused by shootings wouldn't happen half as often...

I'm just saying... :)

28 gun crimes committed in UK every day

Granted 2008 statistics but its still early 2009, tell that to the UK who have banned most forms of firearms, just because they are banned doesnt stop people from getting hold of them illegally, if firearms are regulated then at least you have a database of people with guns and serial numbers.

[Calum Veteran]

28 gun crimes committed in UK every day

Granted 2008 statistics but its still early 2009, tell that to the UK who have banned most forms of firearms, just because they are banned doesnt stop people from getting hold of them illegally, if firearms are regulated then at least you have a database of people with guns and serial numbers.

I'm talking banned as in banned. Meaning you can't buy them anywhere, you can't use them for 'sport', hunting etc. People can still use guns for sport and hunting in the UK right? (I know not many of those are used in crime, but still, I don't think it should be allowed because a gun is a gun)

I'm sure in the UK there will be places to buy guns? How else will so many people get hold of them? These sort of places may be illegal, but if they had a bigger crackdown on guns (similar to how they did with knives recently), that number would be less than 28. There is less knife crime in the UK now because of the knife amnesty they had.

Either way, the number of fatal shootings would be less if guns were banned in the USA anyway. Even though there are 28 shootings a day in the UK (apparently; I find that very hard to believe though), that number would be much higher if anybody was allowed to buy and own guns.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Calum

[HacKage]

Knife crime isnt down because of the knife amnesty, there has been a good few studies that show that during knife amnesties knife crime doesnt change.And that telegraph thing doesnt say there are 28 shootings a day, just that there are 28 gun crimes commited a day, which could range from possesion of an imitation firearm to owning a firearm without a license, but i totally agree that if they were legal, then the crime rate would go through the roof.Just because something is illegal or banned or whatever doesnt stop people owning or making their own weapons.

[Calum Veteran]

Knife crime isnt down because of the knife amnesty, there has been a good few studies that show that during knife amnesties knife crime doesnt change.And that telegraph thing doesnt say there are 28 shootings a day, just that there are 28 gun crimes commited a day, which could range from possesion of an imitation firearm to owning a firearm without a license, but i totally agree that if they were legal, then the crime rate would go through the roof.Just because something is illegal or banned or whatever doesnt stop people owning or making their own weapons.

There was a news story on the UK BBC News with figures which showed knife crime was down. They said it was because of the knife amnesty. I trust that.

You've made a good point about 'gun crime' vs. 'shootings' and that helps my argument even more that if guns were banned, it'd be better for everyone.

It's also obvious that even though something is banned/illegal, people will still do it/use it. Look at drugs for an example.

Drugs are also a good example for this - if drugs were legal, I know many more people would do them. I wouldn't, but unfortunately, I know people who would. It's the same with guns, especially now we live in a society where people think they need to protect themselves because of the sort of crime which happens. As much as I think guns should be banned and illegal, I feel I wouldn't be safe unless I have a gun, now-a-days. How sad is that?

[HacKage]

I think you dont feel safe witout a gun because the next person feels the exact same, and so on.And what this Labour government feeds the BBC and what is reality is usually miles apart.

[Hum]

Anyone for banning stupid people from possessing guns ? :ermm:

[Laurë Veteran]

28 gun crimes committed in UK every day

Granted 2008 statistics but its still early 2009, tell that to the UK who have banned most forms of firearms, just because they are banned doesnt stop people from getting hold of them illegally, if firearms are regulated then at least you have a database of people with guns and serial numbers.

If firearms are regulated you still won't know about the criminals that use them. Regulation doesn't stop idiots and nutcases shooting up schools and innocent passers by.

The lack of guns here generally leads to there being far less motivation for criminals to obtain or use them. They can use knives and such to get what they want. Sure the crime may still be committed but it's harder to kill someone with a knife and easier for a victim to get away if they can get out of arms reach.

Knife crime isnt down because of the knife amnesty, there has been a good few studies that show that during knife amnesties knife crime doesnt change.And that telegraph thing doesnt say there are 28 shootings a day, just that there are 28 gun crimes commited a day, which could range from possesion of an imitation firearm to owning a firearm without a license, but i totally agree that if they were legal, then the crime rate would go through the roof.Just because something is illegal or banned or whatever doesnt stop people owning or making their own weapons.

A knife amnesty doesn't change the fact that anyone can buy a set of knives in a local shop or just raid their kitchen. There is no reason to expect that those with real malicious intent would give up their weapons. (I find these amnesties to be rather ridiculous myself).

[Growled Member]

Guns should be the equalizer between citizens and criminals. A criminal will always have a weapon. It's unfortunate things like this happen, but they do. I believe people should be trained in gun use before they are allowed to purchase them.

However, many innocents lose their lives all over the world every day through violence.

[Calum Veteran]

I believe people should be trained in gun use before they are allowed to purchase them.

If that happens we're still going to have the same problems.

Just because somebody is trained in gun use, it doesn't mean they aren't going to commit a crime with that gun.

If no one is allowed guns, it makes it much harder to commit a crime with a gun.

[CentralDogma]

I'm so glad I live in a safe place where guns are unnecessary. I never had the need to defend myself with a gun because of some threat.

I do think my town is 'safe' because guns aren't allowed. If half the population had a gun, there would be more 'accidents' like this.

Oh, so you live in a Eutopia then.

I honestly don't know why theirs a debate in this thread. What they did was illegal, it's called murder. They're going to be prosecuted for it. The system works. How is this a second amendment issue? Would you somehow make what they did anymore illegal than murder?