GUILTY IN - Brandon Spangler, 17, fatally shot, Shelby County, 30 Dec 2011

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
93
http://www.freep.com/article/201112...Man-who-shot-Michigan-teen-thought-boy-coyote


SHELBYVILLE, Ind. -- Authorities say a central Indiana man who allegedly shot and killed a 17-year-old boy from Flushing says he thought the teen was a coyote in a wooded area on his property. .......

Bagley said he knows Spangler's father and had given him permission to play paintball on his property, but didn't know he and his four children were on his land Friday.


The boy was home from school....no charges filed yet....
 
I read earlier of an off duty police officer shooting and killing a lady out walking her 2 dogs, thought she was a deer, and now this. Do people no know you don't pull the trigger until you can clearly identify your target. this is basic hunting 101 for Pete's sake.
 
How very sad for all involved :( Definately agree, NO shooting unless you are sure what you are shooting at!
 
http://www.freep.com/article/201112...Man-who-shot-Michigan-teen-thought-boy-coyote


SHELBYVILLE, Ind. -- Authorities say a central Indiana man who allegedly shot and killed a 17-year-old boy from Flushing says he thought the teen was a coyote in a wooded area on his property. .......

Bagley said he knows Spangler's father and had given him permission to play paintball on his property, but didn't know he and his four children were on his land Friday.


The boy was home from school....no charges filed yet....

This guy gave the father permission to play paintball-then clearly the father isn't going to play it just by himself. So why didn't this guy think that people might be on his property since he gave the father permission to play paintball. Boggles the mind.
 
This guy gave the father permission to play paintball-then clearly the father isn't going to play it just by himself. So why didn't this guy think that people might be on his property since he gave the father permission to play paintball. Boggles the mind.

I think the permission was given for an earlier day. They assumed permission was open ended and returned Friday without notifying the land owner. It's a poorly written story.
 
I think the permission was given for an earlier day. They assumed permission was open ended and returned Friday without notifying the land owner. It's a poorly written story.

The guy shot at something that he apparently couldn't even see (since he says he believed he shot at coyote and it was teenager). Nobody has a business of shooting at something unless they know what that is. Especially considering he gave people permission to be on his property (even if he were not aware they were there on that specific day) one would think he could have figured out somebody other than coyotes could be on his property before he started shooting.
 
He gave permission for 1 day not the rest of eternity. No charges filed - because what he did isn't illegal. It's a tragic accident. It could have been avoided had the paintballers told the owner of their presence. It's legal for him to shoot at whatever he wants to on his property, including trespassers.
 
He gave permission for 1 day not the rest of eternity. No charges filed - because what he did isn't illegal. It's a tragic accident. It could have been avoided had the paintballers told the owner of their presence. It's legal for him to shoot at whatever he wants to on his property, including trespassers.

So you think you can just shoot anything that moves as long as its on your property? Wow. As for charges, they haven't finished an investigation yet. This guy could still be criminally charged.
"Any time you shoot a bullet and you don't have a clear target, that is irresponsibility. That's not responsible gun handling," said Indiana Conservation Officer Angela Goldman. "You are responsible for ever single bullet that comes out of that firearm."
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/30119121/detail.html
 
He had a clear target, clear enough to hit it. He thought it was a coyote. The poor kid who got shot is more to blame than the shooter, because he didn't let him know he was there. You think you can just trespass when ever? WOW.:crazy:
 
He had a clear target, clear enough to hit it. He thought it was a coyote. The poor kid who got shot is more to blame than the shooter, because he didn't let him know he was there. You think you can just trespass when ever? WOW.:crazy:

Oh please. A teenager and a coyote look nothing alike. I hope they throw a book at this guy.
 
So the wages for trespassing is death? WOW!!

The man did not know what he was shooting at and killed an innocent boy who had been given previous permission to be on the land. It does not matter if it was for one day or not. He should not have been killed due to a mere misunderstanding!

I hope they throw the book at this guy...maybe some jail time will help him remember not to shot at something he can't even see....
 
So the wages for trespassing is death? WOW!!

The man did not know what he was shooting at and killed an innocent boy who had been given previous permission to be on the land. It does not matter if it was for one day or not. He should not have been killed due to a mere misunderstanding!

I hope they throw the book at this guy...maybe some jail time will help him remember not to ....

WOW yourself. He wasn't given permission to be on the land on that day WOW. WOW just make up your own facts why don't you? He won't even be charged. Wow oh wow. What misunderstanding? He should not have been killed - wow - great and true statement - that no one is arguing. He didn't have permission to be there that day and the land owner mistook him for a coyote - that's the story. Hope all you want, there won't be any charges. He saw his target and hit it. Wow you think he "shot at something he can't even see". Where in the story did it say he couldn't see it? He saw it - he hit it.
 
WOW yourself. He wasn't given permission to be on the land on that day WOW. WOW just make up your own facts why don't you? He won't even be charged. Wow oh wow. What misunderstanding? He should not have been killed - wow - great and true statement - that no one is arguing. He didn't have permission to be there that day and the land owner mistook him for a coyote - that's the story. Hope all you want, there won't be any charges. He saw his target and hit it. Wow you think he "shot at something he can't even see". Where in the story did it say he couldn't see it? He saw it - he hit it.

I disagree that 'he saw it'.

From the article it is very clear the man did NOT see the boy before shooting:

"says he thought the teen was a coyote in a wooded area on his property." [IOW, he did not know whether it was a coyote or a boy]

"He said he fired shots into woods on his property southeast of Indianapolis after hearing a disturbance he thought was a coyote attack." [he didn't SEE anything..he HEARD something and shot without knowing what he was shooting at]
 
WOW yourself. He wasn't given permission to be on the land on that day WOW. WOW just make up your own facts why don't you? He won't even be charged. Wow oh wow. What misunderstanding? He should not have been killed - wow - great and true statement - that no one is arguing. He didn't have permission to be there that day and the land owner mistook him for a coyote - that's the story. Hope all you want, there won't be any charges. He saw his target and hit it. Wow you think he "shot at something he can't even see". Where in the story did it say he couldn't see it? He saw it - he hit it.

Your arguments make no sense. You can not shoot people just because they show up on your property without your specific permission to be there (and that is completely ignoring the fact that the father had permission to play paintball on this guy's property). If a delivery man shows on you property delivering packages to you, do you think you can just shoot and kill them because they don't have your specific permission to be on you property? How about girl scouts trying to sell you some cookies?
 
Your arguments make no sense. You can not shoot people just because they show up on your property without your specific permission to be there (and that is completely ignoring the fact that the father had permission to play paintball on this guy's property). If a delivery man shows on you property delivering packages to you, do you think you can just shoot and kill them because they don't have your specific permission to be on you property? How about girl scouts trying to sell you some cookies?

And then there's that pesky mailman, always on my property.
 
WOW yourself. He wasn't given permission to be on the land on that day WOW. WOW just make up your own facts why don't you? He won't even be charged. Wow oh wow. What misunderstanding? He should not have been killed - wow - great and true statement - that no one is arguing. He didn't have permission to be there that day and the land owner mistook him for a coyote - that's the story. Hope all you want, there won't be any charges. He saw his target and hit it. Wow you think he "shot at something he can't even see". Where in the story did it say he couldn't see it? He saw it - he hit it.

You know, I respect the Second Amendment. really I do. I also have friends who hunt and collect guns so I am not coming from someplace that wants to take them away from people.

Your flip attitude about this tragedy underscores for me why so many people have problems with this issue. Instead of agreeing that this was a tragedy that could have been avoided by responsible action, you go into a defensive argumentive mode. Your sarcasm doesn't add much, either. I hope someone else's child doesn't stray accidently onto your property some day.
 
This boy was a friend of my sons. They were Seniors together. He also was friend with my other children.
The family had permission to use the land any time. It was not for a specific day or time. It wasn't just the Brandon ,it was him and his father and his siblings. They were visiting their father and stepmom for xmas break.


The funeral was horrible dad broke done and is blaming himself. They had to physically take him out of there.This was a good kid. I feel bad for everyone involved

I am a gun owner and I believe you have a right to own guns. But in this case I believe you need to know what your shooting at.
Right now they are waiting to see if charges are going to pressed against the porperty owner. There was talk of wreakless discharge of a weapon, and a few other possibilities.
 
Here's a story with his picture:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ead-paintball-outing-indiana-article-1.999813

How anyone with half a brain can defend what the shooter did is way beyond me. He needs to be charged with manslaughter. He apparently made no effort to call out. He could have fired in the air. The stories say nothing much about him, it sounds like he lived alone, maybe wioth mental issues?

You do NOT have some inalienable right to shoot at anything or anyone that moves on your property.
 
If they just charged a guy in TX with assault for shooting at targets near a school and accidentally hitting a student, then I fail to see why they wouldn't charge this guy, especially considering the teenager he shot is actually dead and not just wounded. Reckless discharge of weapon doesn't seem enough to me at all, considering the teenager is dead.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
2,657
Total visitors
2,807

Forum statistics

Threads
590,021
Messages
17,929,113
Members
228,039
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top