Police: Teen shot in chest during attempted home invasion

KNOXVILLE — The 17-year-old boy who was killed while allegedly trying to break into a South Knoxville house died from a single gunshot wound to the chest, a police spokesman said today.

Although authorities aren’t releasing many details of the case, Knoxville Police Department spokesman Darrell DeBusk said it appears that Arsenio Wooten, 17, was felled by a round fired by homeowner Richard A. Naleway, 44. DeBusk said police don’t believe that the teen was struck by a bullet fired by his accomplice.

“They’re still doing an autopsy, but nothing suggests otherwise,” DeBusk said.

Wooten died during an exchange of gunfire at 814 Carls Lane about 5:25 a.m. Wednesday, police say. Naleway, who was at home with his wife, said that he fired two shots from a semiautomatic pistol as two would-be robbers tried to push their way through his front door.

A spent shell casing recovered from the scene and Naleway’s statement indicated that one of the suspects also fired a shot from a semiautomatic pistol, but DeBusk said the exact sequence of the shots wasn’t clear.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/06/police-teen-shot-chest-during-attempted-home-invas/

:-(

to turn his life around.

years of being made fun of for having the name "Arsenio Wooten"

with a name like that, crime was his only option

Bringing a gun to a robbery probably meant that this wouldn't have ended well normally.

If the country wasn't so awash with guns that even 17-year-old dumbfucks can get them at will.

And where gun ownership isn't so enshrined as a civil right, criminals find it substantially more difficult to find guns. Especially stupid child-criminals, who are the ones most likely to use them, er, stupidly.

The fact that the homeowner felt he needed to protect himself with a weapon -- and was apparently correct -- is *not* an especially compelling argument for more guns in more people's hands.

I don't encourage people who don't want firearms to go buy them.

a right -- to own firearms -- should be changed. In the 21st century, as opposed to the 18th, the personal ownership of firearms by civilians is a cancer in the belly of society and should be curbed.

Unconstitutional? Maybe (but only maybe). So change the Constitution. And start rounding up the guns, especially those in the black market and in the hands of criminals. Admittedly, that's a daunting task, but you've got to start somewhere.

Sorry about the "you've" what I really mean is "society's" got to start somewhere. I suspect you disagree.

Changing the Constitution isn't going to happen and whatever party tries it will lose elections for decades. Increasing the penalties for illegal possession of a firearm to 10 years to be served day for day and consecutively with any additional convictions, would dramatically reduce the number of violent felons in public and be a significant deterrent to gun crime. Opening the NICS to private sellers would reduce the number of felons who acquire weapons via law abiding citizens. Increasing the penalties for straw purchasers to the same as the penalties as listed above, would decrease the number of straw purchases. Those are some ideas that could get through Congress that Obama would sign.


David

Simply reducing the number of guns in circulation would be an unalloyed good.

The stiffer prison sentences would only be practicable, however, if you start releasing nonviolent drug offenders (although integrating them into society is going to be a bitch) and fix the insane "war on drugs."

I also think that -- eventually -- America will fall out of love with personally owned firearms and constitutional change will be much easier. Possibly not in my lifetime, however.

Someday America is going to figure out how to stop shooting itself in the foot.

and rates of gun violence.


From the CDC;

In 1990, there were 182,000,000 guns in America (wow);

Number of Deaths - 35,392
Population - 249,464,396
CrudeRate - 14.19 (per 100,000)
Age Adjusted Rate - 13.82



In 2004, there were 252,000,000 guns, a rate of increase greater than that of the population.

Number of Deaths - 28,685
Population - 293,656,842
Crude Rate - 9.77
Age-Adjusted Rate - 9.65

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html


So not only did rates of gun deaths go down while the number of guns rose, but the actual number went down. I don't know what the trend between the two years was, but I'd be willing to bet the trend is reflected. What did we have a great deal of in the '90s? Prosperity. Jobs were everywhere. Were there other causes? I'd bet on that too.

Simply 'reducing the number of guns' would likely be fruitless as the guns most likely to be used in crimes would be the more difficult to get a hold of.

Putting an end to the war on drugs would be a great start.

A "good" person could have 1000 handguns and there would not be a problem. A "bad" person only needs one to be a serious problem.

would support these measures.

1) Your suggestion of a 10 year sentence for illegally carrying a firearm would deter everyday carry by criminals and the resulting shootings from some individual "disrespecting" the gun carrier.

2) I would love to be able to use the NICS background check when I sell a weapon. Currently, I refuse to sell a firearm to an individual unless I personally know him and he has a concealed carry permit. All weapons that change hands in this country should require an NICS background check. That would totally eliminate the "gun show loophole". The NICS background check should receive more money to allow quicker updates from the states and should be improved to identify those with severe mental problems.

3) Straw purchasers should definitely go to jail for a LONG time and I personally feel they should be tried as an accomplice to murder if the weapon they purchased is later used to murder someone.

.. which only affects the federal govt (assuming no incorporation under the 14th for the 2nd), many (most?) state constitutions protect a similar right. Thanks to the ninth / tenth amendment, the state right stands.

Even if you repeal the second amendment, you have the SCOTUS saying that the second amendment only enshrines a common law right- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Public opinion in the states would have to have shifted substantially, to the point where state laws could be relegislated as well.

away from prohibition.



Note that is just handguns much less a complete ban. Support for complete ban is like substantially lower than 29%.
In the 50s & 60s you might have been able to accomplish it.



I like this poll because it has been done for a long time showing us historical trend. CNN recently did a poll where support for more gun control was at 39%.



On the Constitutional issue an incredibly large % of NON GUN OWNERS agree with the Supreme Court.


On state politics level over last two decades 28 states have added CCW "shall issue" laws none have repealed them.
Same timeframe 12 states have added "castle doctrine" type laws and none have reapealed them.

So public opinion is changing it just is not in the direction you would like.

and should be curbed"


WOW! Any other parts of the Constitution you think are antiquated and should be changed?

To own firearms it's a right to defend yourself that predates the Constitution and has existed since the dawn of time. Part of that right is access to the best tools for the job. Thats where firearms come in

Edit..didn't realize this thread and post is a month old before posting..

the screen shot above was shortly before it was moved from GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=236375

Guns are essentially banned there and yet they are having huge numbers of violent gun crime (mostly gang related). Toronto and Vancouver are having an all time high gun crime rate this year. Criminals will get guns no matter what.

I don't recommend wasting the time. I've tried it, and it doesn't work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x244827#245328

rd_kent
Thu Aug-06-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #92

98. Gun crime in Metro Vancouver highest per capita in Canada

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?k=19079&id=4b651ab1-e729-44a9-86d3-79a1ddc84689


iverglas
Fri Aug-07-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #98

176. uh, it has to be "highest" somewhere, doesn't it?

From the article you cite:

There were 45.3 violent offences involving guns for every 100,000 people in Metro Vancouver, slightly higher than Toronto at 40.4 but far above the national average of 27.5, says the report, which is based on police-reported data from 2006.

But gun violence in Vancouver was far behind that in Toronto and Montreal when population size wasn’t considered. A total of 1,993 people in Toronto were victims of a violent firearm-related crime in 2006, about one-quarter of the national total. Montreal was second with 1,291 and Vancouver was third with 455.

Essentially, what you're saying is that in a city of 1,000,000, there were 455 "violent offences involving firearms" in 2006.

Can you name a city of 1,000,000 in the US in which there were 455 violent crimes involving firearms in the 2006???

http://www.examiner.com/x-16503-LA-County-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Guns-from-the-United-States-Fuel-Crime-in-Canada-and-Mexico

The rate of gun homicide in Canada is statistically low and falling, yet public perception is that gun crime is rising. When Toronto, a city with 2.8 million people hit 52 gun homicides in 2005, it became "the year of the gun" in spite of the fact that the city had one of the lowest murder rates on the continent for a city of its size. Rates of homicide with guns are 6.7 times higher in the US than in Canada, and the US has 5.1 times Canada's rate per 100,000 of gun robberies.

That's a quick cite of a secondary source, but I know the numbers, and those are accurate.


iverglas
Fri Aug-07-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #176

190. hark

So far today, Mr. Kent, you have stalked me to another forum. Anything else up your sleeve?

Are you planning a vacation?


Oh yeah, just another falsehood.

"Guns are essentially banned in Canada"

Tell that to your buddies who are all the time saying Canada has more guns per capita than the US.

:rofl:



html fixed

Kind of like post #24 and 25 in this very thread.

Deflate your ego a bit. I do respond to many of your post though, because they are usually so outlandish and false.

My standard response to you will still be: When you have solved the gun crime problem in Canada, where handguns are so difficult to get a permit for they are essentially illegal to own, then you can have a say on American gun policy. Till then, take a flying leap....and hope that someone cares.

concealed carry is.

i have friends in canada who live on a farm and have several guns.

In the 1980s, Dutch organized crime was running guns to the Provisional IRA, among others. Volkert van der Graaf, the guy who murdered Pim Fortuyn in 2002, thereby committing the first political assassination in the Netherlands in over 400 years, bought the pistol off some guy in a bar. There have been over 20 incidents involving unlawful discharge of firearms in Amsterdam South-East since the beginning of the year, of which at least 13 in the past three months.

The problem in the U.S. isn't the availability of firearms, it's the cultural attitude among the criminally inclined that you need to be able to kill someone for the slightest transgression. And now that that attitude is spreading to the criminal element in western Europe, they're getting more of that as wel, and all their guns aren't doing a thing to stop the process.

"and all their gun laws aren't doing a thing to stop the process."

Population of the Netherlands, est. at July 2008: 16,645,313

Unlawful discharge of firearms in Amsterdam South-East in 2009: 20

Rolling around on the floor in hysterics at your very funny story: priceless

(Thinking that you were actually serious when you wrote that: I owe me dinner now.)

The law-abiding populace is unarmed. The British got their panties in a bunch when Dan Rather exposed their rising crime rates after the gun ban.

You have just won a prize. The 472nd poster in the Guns forum to spew total shit this week.

Here ya go.

Have a look at the gun crime problem in Canada, where handguns are (essentially) illegal and very difficult to get a permit for. Gun crime in all of the major cities is at record highs.

Why is it that none of the criminals in my neighbourhood have guns?

They just don't want them?

The guy who tried to hold up my local 7-11 with a pen knife really just didn't want to have a handgun?

I mean, he could have got one if he'd wanted it, no?

To answer your questions, I need some information first. What neighborhood do you live in? Who are some of the criminals so that I might interview them? Who was the criminal that held up the 7-11? Get back to me with that and I'll answer your questions.

I think there is, someone showed it to me yesterday. Who was that?

What's the name of the poster TO WHOM I WAS SPEAKING, attached to the post TO WHICH I REPLIED?

If replying to a post in a thread is "calling out", we have a problem.

One you should seek professional help for.

The homeowner fired first at them trying to get into the house. Sounds like a perfect example of a citizen exercising their 2A rights and protecting their family and home from criminals.

Do you have any specifics for a prohibitionist scheme?

Better luck in the next life for the home invader.

Side-note: Arsenio?? I guess we what his mom's favorite show was. :rofl:

Gosh.

He was African-American.

Cute way of pointing it out there.

My family liked Arsenio Hall back in the day and we're white. I merely find it amusing when people name their kids after famous people. acts, shows or books.

Your post and your implication fail.

Any white "Arsenios" in your 'hood?

It's not your point to make.

Must have a Magic 8 Ball

How bloody arrogant.

and cmon people, get real...

"Arsenio Wooten?"

it has a certain dr. seuss kind of charm, but cmon.

And I'll never meet this young man. In fact I've never even heard of an Arsenio or than Mr. Hall. I think it would be amusing to meet a person with that handle. So would meeting a Conan or Carson.

Are you implying something? It seems from your tiff with FMD that you are.

I'm not implying anything, are you playing dumb?

That's what I'm curious about. Would you care to answer?

It is unfortunate that the gunshot killed this kid, but not as unfortunate as the decision he made that brought this about.

:rofl:

You guys is a gas.

You won't be shooting nobody. You daid.

If it were so easy to change the constitution to eliminate guns then it would also be very easy to eliminate freedom of speech. (especially after we eliminate guns) To say that eliminating guns is the only way to end gun violence is very nieve. To say that gun were more practical in the 18th century as opposed to the 21st century is extremely closed minded. A estimated 45% of American households own guns. Its a way of life for some, and to eliminate it is telling others how to live there lives. That is not what America is about. "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" = As long as I harm no others my life liberty and pursuit of happiness is no others business. Just my thoughts. Check this link out


Gunfacts.com