Teen With AK47 Defends Home Against Armed Invader

BbbE6jj

In Byram Mississippi, on 1 June, at about 3 p.m. a minor was at home alone. He called his father to report a possible home invasion. A neighbor gave this account. From wapt.com:

“Daddy armed him in case he was ever by himself,” neighbor Rick Waltz said. “Daddy was at work and he got a call that said, ‘It sounds like somebody is in the house. More than one.’ Like any parent would do, he said, ‘Get your gun and protect yourself if you have to.’ Somewhere along the line they met up, and one will not be going home tonight.”

The rifle the father had armed his son with is reported to be one of the ubiquitous semi-automatic clones of the famous AK47. They’re an excellent choice for home defense. While they are not capable of automatic fire like military versions used by many countries, several attributes useful for home defense exist in both versions.

They’re easy to handle.  Their overall length and pistol grip allow them to be more easily maneuvered inside buildings, and make it easier to prevent being disarmed by an assailant.

They’re relatively light, don’t recoil a great deal, and have good ammunition capacity. In rural or semi-rural locations, such as in this case, over penetration is less of a problem. Because they are so well known, they have excellent deterrent value. In this instance, though, the deterrent value wasn’t sufficient.

From clarionledger.com:

During the course of the investigation, police determined that Reed had conspired with the victim immediately prior to the incident to rob the resident at the home.

Police said the incident unfolded quickly. When the teen who lived at the home saw the alleged intruder, he shot him once with an AK-47. It appears the bullet went into the victim’s hand, traveled up his arm and into his chest cavity. Only one shot is believed to have been fired.

There was no forced entry, Thompson said, and there wasn’t a vehicle in the area connected with the victim.

The dead man was reported to have been armed with a handgun. The man charged, Samuel Reed, is 18 years old. The invader who was shot has been identified as Cameron Jackson, also 18. The victim who defended his home is believed to be a teenager. His name hasn’t been released.

Weapons that are used to defend homes are seldom identified in news reports. It’s likely that this instance will be added to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports as a homicide with a rifle.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Any comment from blowingbill16 on this incident? He’s stated that no one has ever stopped a crime with a gun.

    1. avatar Bob R says:

      Including police? Oh, that’s right, it’s only a legitimate act of self defense if you’re a cop…

  2. avatar Mikesees says:

    Calling an armed home invader a “victim” is pure insanity.

    1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      It’s all part of the propaganda game. Progressive politicos and common burglars share the same exact thought process. Both feel that they are owed (and can thus take by force) the fruits of someone else’s labor, financial and material, in order to redistribute them to those they feel are “deserving.” This is born out of their own jealousy/desire to control everything in the name of degenerate Leninism, because *GASP!* somebody somewhere in America has something that another does not so of course it must be “nationalized.” Yeah, this is sadly the America we live in.

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        Yup, labeling the dead intruder as the “victim” runs counter to common sense and made the linked article incredibly hard to understand.

        1. avatar Supermike says:

          Agreed… On first read, I thought the teen/shooter (the real victim) had conspired with the guy he shot.

          “police determined that Reed had conspired with the victim immediately prior to the incident to rob the resident at the home”

          The guy who got shot was NOT the victim- he was the assailant. He had no business in that home, and he paid the ultimate price.

        2. avatar Mikial says:

          You’re being generous calling the dead guy an “intruder.” He was an armed criminal scumbag who got what he deserved. Period.

      2. avatar Bob R says:

        Anything to demonize people (non-police/military) who own guns. They hate gun owners much more than actual criminals. They have never faced a violent criminal, so all they know is what they see in the media and the movies (but I repeat myself).

        Violent criminals seem abstract to them. But they do know that there are people milling about where they live and work that do own guns and boy do they hate them. (I personally know people like this)

      3. avatar Wilson says:

        Hey Milsurp, you asked about 8mm Mauser loads yesterday. If you haven’t seen my reply to you, check it out.

        The original load was 156 grains at ~2900fps, so the some of loads I linked (in the scans) in 150 grain are pretty close.

        1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

          I copypasted that reply to my giant word document of valuable gun and ammo related info. Thank you kindly for your help

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      I was about to point out the same thing. The only victim is the teenager who has to deal with the fact that he killed another human being for the rest of his life. Even if it’s justified, homicide can be a pretty tough burden to bear.
      The other two involved are “the surviving suspect” and “the deceased suspect.”

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Well, strictly speaking, you don’t really know for a fact who’s who or what’s what. We just have what some reporter writes that some officer told him.

      In fact, we won’t know anything definitive about the case until after it’s been presented to the grand jury. “Victim” is standard police terminology the same as “the shooter” is, regardless of the circumstances. There need not be some vast leftwing conspiracy to commandeer the language.

    4. avatar thegreatclownpuncher says:

      I am not a lawyer, however, I believe he is referred to as a victim is because they were in the act of a felony and numbnutts #1 (the not dead guy) will be charged with the murder of numbnutts #2 (the dead guy). Therefore numbnutts #1 is the murderer and, though confusing, numbnutts #2 is the victim of said murder.

      1. avatar Warren says:

        That’s how it works in Texas, too. A similar situation happened in a nearby town where two armed intruders broke into a home and the victim shot and killed one. The other intruder faced quite the list of charges, including murder of his fellow conspirator.

    5. avatar Dave says:

      That really confused me at first… I was like he was the intruder. Some one who dies as a result of their own actions can’t be a victim. Unless it’s to their own stupidity…

    6. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      My thoughts also. The victim is the kid who was forced to shoot a criminal.

  3. avatar TTACer says:

    I know it’s set off and in italics to show it’s a quote, but please add “(sic)” after the word “victim”.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      ^^^ very much. When I first read it I thought the teenager was a conspirator.

  4. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

    That’s one of the most brutal wounds I’ve seen described… glad there was no infographic in this case. Glad the kid is OK and I wish well the future of his legal and mental health.

    1. avatar CP says:

      My thoughts exactly. Articles like this could carry more weight with some sort of follow up on both the real victim (the boy in the house), and the perpetrators (both alive and dead). Too many times we see these situations get spun around in the legal system and by relatives of the perps. Makes me ill when you hear the homeowner has to defend him or herself in court (after defending their own lives and surviving such a traumatic event). That teens’ life changed due to this event. I hope he is well.

      1. avatar cenonce says:

        I’m sure “Dindu nuffin’s” family will be on the TV later saying he was a “good boy” who didn’t deserve to be shot because he would’ve never hurt the boy.

      2. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

        If anything, shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t the homeowner be able to sue the perps family for cleaning costs/pain, suffering, and mental anguish?

        1. avatar Nathan says:

          Damn right. The decedents estate ought to be on the hook for damages caused by his criminal act. Just as the surviving scumbag ought to be up for the death of his co-felon; though I’m not sure how they apply the felony murder rule down there.

        2. avatar James Wegman says:

          PLUS IMPROPER AND POOR PARENTING!

    2. avatar DrewN says:

      Sounds like the (good) kid got fixated on the invaders gun and the perp was bladed toward him with his gun arm extended.

      1. avatar anaxis says:

        No doubt some genius on a grand jury will assume that the wound track means he didn’t have a pistol in his hand, and instead had extended it in a futile attempt to stop the round…. and therefore, vote for murder charges against the boy.

        1. avatar Warren says:

          This is Mississippi we’re talking about. I highly doubt that’s how it’ll play out. But life constantly surprises me.

    3. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      Regarding the brutal wound, I wanna point out something.
      Consider the possibility that the perpetrator had the handgun pointed toward the hallway or doorway that the teenager emerged from. The gun in the perpetrator’s hand would be lined up, pointing outward from the center of his body mass. The victim would likely fire toward the body mass of the home invader and the bullet could very likely enter through the attacker’s hand, proceed through his forearm (or arm as the article describes it) and exit with more than enough force to proceed into his chest.
      Of course, we won’t know until the coroner’s report becomes available long after the media loses all interest in the case, so the facts could be quite different.

    4. avatar John Frazer says:

      I read from someone who had an ND while re-holstering: fmj .40S&W In downward slightly towards the back just below the blade of the hip bone on his side, out through the inside sole of his foot… Didn’t hit any major nerves or blood vessels or break any bones.

  5. avatar matty 9 says:

    It appears the person referred to as”victim” is the kid that lived there

  6. avatar kevin says:

    So a 17 year old is a “child” according to the TTAG author?

    How about this as an alternate headline:
    “Young Man with Rifle Defends Self Against Armed Home Invaders.”

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Where did it say he was 17?

      1. avatar kevin says:

        click thru:
        Byram Police Chief Luke Thompson. . .
        ***
        Thompson said that the 17-year-old who lived at the home did not know the victim who was armed with a handgun.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Thanks. Yeah that’s pushing it then.

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        When did 17 stop being a child?

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          When the gun-grabbers talk about dead children, TTAG routinely points out that the numbers include teenage gang-bangers, and say they’re not children, so it’s a fair critique.
          However, unlike the gun-grabbers, TTAG isn’t using the term child for emotional manipulation.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          17 is only a “child” if the dead person was a gang member. Or if the anti-gun gang is trying to prove we need more gun laws.

        3. avatar John Frazer says:

          17 stopped being a child when they can get parent permission & join the Marines.

        4. avatar kevin says:

          If you call 17 year olds children, then you have every right to expect them to act like children. Most 17 year olds are fully capable of acting like adults, if motivated. I suspect the teenager in this story is one of them.

          (Some 30 year olds act like children, but that has nothing to do with their biological age.)

  7. avatar CowardJohnsons(no relation) says:

    See that’s why children should be armed starting at the age they can walk. I gave my nephew/cousin/uncle a cricket .22 when he was still in diapers. Course he was 25 at the time.

  8. avatar Paul53 says:

    Love the bullets that look around for something vital to hit!

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yeah. I’ve gotta find me some of those!

  9. avatar Wilson says:

    Initially I was going to take TTAG to task for this extremely confusing story.

    However, after seeing the reports DW is working with I’m not surprised. I had to read both to figure out what was actually going on because the stories repeatedly refer to the criminal as the “victim” which is truly obnoxious.

    Either way, good on the kid who pulled the trigger. An unknown person who’s armed with a handgun and is trying to break into your house is not there with good intentions.

    1. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      Get with the times, man. All the laws against AK47 imports exist because only terrorists and warlords use them for nefarious purposes.

  10. avatar CLarson says:

    Anyone else think its weird that the only unarmed guy in the confrontation is going to be charged with murder for the shooting death? I have heard of 2 guys robbing a store and if one shoots the clerk the other gets a murder charge, which seems logical. But if shooting an armed intruder is lawful self defense, how can the armed intruder simultaneously become a victim of capital murder? How can he be a victim at all? It seems like the State is trying to have it both ways. As a jury member I would need some hard convincing before possibly giving the surviving criminal the death penalty for his partners death. Personal responsibility is a two way street.

    1. avatar Wilson says:

      Some states have laws that if you’re a perpetrator and anyone dies, including a fellow perp, during the commission of a felony you are guilty of murder.

      The thought is that both perpetrators are egging each other on to commit the crime and therefore if one dies the other(s) are guilty of basically conspiring to create a situation that got someone killed.

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        I understand the premise now, but I am not a fan. This legal theory seems to be a way to stack charges on criminals without meeting the specific burden of proof for the charges.

        1. avatar Wilson says:

          That’s exactly what it is, a way to throw the book at the living criminal. It’s all part of that “tough on crime” stance.

          In this case the guy might end up getting the needle at Parchman for his involvement, which I agree seems excessive.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          An accomplice/facilitator of a murder should be charged with a lesser crime?

        3. avatar DrewN says:

          So should extorting defendants with a mountain of extra charges+enhancements so they will fall into line and plead out to the charge they should have been hit with in the first place. That is some straight up BS right there.

        4. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          I Would say I’m not a fan of it except it seems so many people involved with this stuff these days get on parole/probation/bail and do it all over again. He played a stupid game, he won a stupid prize. Wouldn’t surprise me if he pleads down/they give a lax sentence.

        5. avatar Nathan says:

          I think everyone is being a little hard on the felony murder rule here. I don’t know or care whether it deters further crime, if you commit a felony and during the course of which someone is killed, someone should be on the hook for it and you can ask the question “who is responsible for this death?”. Logically it isn’t the teen who shot the home intruder who is responsible, but the intruder(s), therefor it seems perfectly reasonable to charge the survivors with that death in some way, shape, or form.

          When you break into a house presumably you understand and accept that the owners might try and defend their selves and their property, and that violence may ensue. So frame it like this: “I know that if I do this thing, there is a reasonable chance that someone may get killed, maimed or otherwise made unwell. Lets go do the thing!”

          Sounds like manslaughter to me, and I believe that is the way that the felony murder rule applies in Mississippi, I’m not sure whether it applies to co-felons though, or only to bystanders, et al.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        It is called the “felony murder” rule, which provides, as you say, that if anyone, including one of the perpetrators, dies during the commission of a felony, all those who conspired to commit the felony are equally guilty of murder, even if that person did not have a weapon or fire one. The rule has been applied to convict and sentence the getaway driver to life in prison when a convenience store owner shot and killed one of the robbers. It is one of the many laws that were believed (obviously incorrectly) to have a deterrent effect on violent crime. As the old saying goes, if one hangs, they all hang.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          It’s also been used to convict people who were actually trying to stop the crime, because they were part of the group committing it due to having arrived together.

          Prosecutors love it because they can claim to have convicted more thugs.

    2. avatar Dave says:

      I believe Texas has a law like this also – if your partner in crime is killed you are held responsible for his death with a murder charge.

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        I poked about, I am from Texas also. I did find the Texas equivalent of felony murder known here as the “law of parties.” http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-7-02.html
        It details how felonies committed by an individual will apply to everyone in a group. It doesn’t seem to be flexible enough to charge surviving members of a criminal party with the death of their comrades.

    3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      In Illinois we have a similar law, we call it “felony murder.”
      Sounds redundant, I know, but our prisons are filled with people who earned themselves such a conviction.

      And I’m fine with that.

      1. avatar Albrecht Kurze says:

        Ohio has a similar law.
        I think it’s appropriate given how broken the criminal justice system has become. Maybe it wouldn’t be necessary if the prisons weren’t a revolving door of criminal higher education and social networking.

    4. avatar Craig says:

      Here in Central Fla we just had a co-criminal charged with homicide after the COPS shot and killed her accomplice. I’m not sure how I feelz about that charge. Seems a little squirrely and really reaching by the prosecutor to me. Plenty of other things to charge her with.

  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Another one rides the bus.

  12. avatar Socrates says:

    This report must be false as these incidents never happen / Sarc. Now sad is that due to FBI reporting this stat will now be used to push for more uncommon sense gun safety laws.

  13. avatar Bob R says:

    Shot thru the hand and same bullet went into chest. Could have been the gun-holding hand being aimed at the kid.

  14. avatar Specialist38 says:

    The Clarion Ledger referred to the person shot as “victim”.

    Bullshit. The only victim is the homeowner.

    The guys doing the robbing were “perps”.

    Shame on the Clarion-Ledger.

    Kudos to the young homeowner.

  15. avatar I1ULUZ says:

    Headline should read, AK47 SAVES CHILD’S LIFE Brave child was able to defend his home and life with the use of an AK47.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I demand the father of the defender be charged with child abuse and neglect. Who leaves a 17 year old child home alone? Is this the sort of parenting we should encourage?

    2. avatar John Frazer says:

      Well, if some guns are evil agencies on their own and do harm, then this one must be counted as having done this good on its own.

  16. avatar Calvin says:

    *mawp*

  17. avatar James in AZ says:

    I didnt quite get who was who…

  18. avatar FedUp says:

    So, this guy conspires with the “victim” to break into the home.
    I don’t think the word victim means what you allegedly professional journalists think it means.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    The original story was so poorly written that I must assume that the writer was either (i) a graduate of America’s institutions of non-learning, and therefore a functional illiterate, or (i) an illegal immigrant, and therefore a total illiterate, or (iii) a Democrat.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Ralph, if I were to place a bet, your items one and three are likely both true. Communication as practiced by those that view gun owners as knuckle dragging half witts, could best be described as barely functional to the task of ordering a beer in a bar!

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      Do I have to pick just one?

  20. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    That’s a whole lotta (sic) “get some” for the teen.

    Well done young man, well done.

  21. avatar 2Asux sucks says:

    My mind is made up. the wasr is going by my bedside.

  22. avatar racer88 says:

    I normally post links to these DGU stories on my Facebook timeline. But, this one (from the news site) is SO poorly-written, I have to disqualify it. It didn’t make the cut, so to speak.

    Sadly, today’s journalists are no longer the paragons of writing skills.

    1. avatar Warren says:

      Go ahead and post it. But give it a clarifying interpretation/summary. I trust you’re mainly friends with people who have some degree of intellect and can figure it out, just like you did?

  23. avatar Mikial says:

    I’m sure some people will say this ‘poor kid’ will have to live with the fact he killed someone for the rest of his life.

    Well, if people have their heads screwed on straight they’ll tell him he’s a warrior who did what needed to be done to protect himself from a scumbag criminal that society is better without.

    1. You see it correctly. That young man is a survivor/warrior. I hope his core supporters never let him forget it.

  24. avatar LHW says:

    I hope he does not get drug though the mud.

  25. avatar Common Sense says:

    In your recent article about the Byram home shooting, you repeatedly refer to one of the intruders as the “victim”. You are an IDIOT. He is the perpetrator, not a damn victim. He got EXACTLY what he deserved and I personally applaud this young man for doing the right thing and defending his home. Fuck the kid who died, and fuck you for trying to demonize legal responsible gun owners, and somehow strike a chord of sympathy for this poor “victim”. Jesus Fucking Christ lady. What if some monster broke into your home and had your kids at gunpoint, possibly going to rape or brutalize or murder you precious babies. Then your heroic teen came to the rescue and defended your home and children with a tool specifically designed for that purpose. Then, some hack reporter has the audacity to call the piece of shit that tried to take from you a victim? Are you kidding me? You should be ASHAMED of your self. I am ashamed of you.

    Sincerely,
    Common sense

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Who the blazes are you addressing?

  26. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    I wonder if that teen has chosen a career path? I know of some good ones for him.

  27. avatar Eric says:

    that’s it Going to get the AK-47 !!!!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email