Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day: Timothy Wayne Gooden

Have I mentioned that I’m the dad of a 13-year-old female? Did I let it slip that, this week, I became her “custodial parent,” and she now lives with me, full-time? Or that, looking ahead, I plan to put the Fear Of God into any boy who dates my daughter? (When the time comes that she’s old enough to date, of course – I’m still looking into nunneries, and we’re not even Roman Catholic.) So it’s with that prologue that I state, for the record, I can understand why a dad would want to go all Dirty Harry on not one, but two nekkid boys [Editor’s Note: the late, great Southern writer/humorist Lewis Grizzard defines “Naked” is defined as a state of undress. “Nekkid” is when you are naked and up to something.] found in his home with an equally-nekkid daughter. It’s an understandable reaction. But it’s a really stupid idea, and completely irresponsible behavior for a CHL holder. To wit, this little gem from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer . . .

A Kent man accused threatening to shoot his 17-year-old daughter’s boyfriend after finding him naked in his home has been charged with assault.

King County prosecutors claim Timothy Wayne Gooden threatened to shoot the 16-year-old boy after coming home on July 11 to find the teens in his home. Gooden, 40, is also alleged to have pointed the loaded pistol at another teen in the home.

You can argue that he violated one of the four rules  – never point your gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot/kill. Given I’m a dad, too, not sure you could really comment on ‘intent’ at that point. If Gooden intended to kill two unarmed (obviously – I mean, where would they conceal weapons?) kids, I’m thinkin’ that perhaps he’s let the ‘heat of the moment’ impair his judgement, ya know?

“The defendant returned home unexpectedly to find his daughter’s boyfriend and another friend were at his house,” Deputy Prosecutor Christina Miyamasu told the court. “The defendant responded by loading a round in the chamber of a pistol he held in his hand and pointing it directly at both boys.”

Responded by loading a round in the chamber?” You mean, he doesn’t carry with one in the pipe? That’s pretty irresponsible for a vastly different reason.

Apparently, the kids heard dear ol’ dad drive up. Harlot O’Hara instructed her two boy toys to go hide in the bathroom. Dad was evidently not fooled, and demanded she turn Quisling on her paramour(s). When he found the first boy, he drew his pistol, cocked it (is it fair to assume the boys were already ‘cocked and locked’?), and pointed it at the nekkid yoots. According to the charges filed, Gooden claimed he could shoot the little rapscallion for “breaking and entering.” (His HOUSE. Get your minds out of the gutter.)

He went on to opine, “I have every right now to blow your brains out!” I’m not familiar with Washington State’s Castle Doctrine (if they even have it), but I suspect it requires that homeowners pass some legal tests like “did you feel your life was in danger” or “the assailant broke in” or even “he was violently assaulting me or a family member.” And of course, if that family member was alive to tell the tale, so to speak, I’m not sure she’d have daddy’s back, when it came time to testify, if you know what I mean.

The boy later told investigators Gooden punched his daughter and made both of them sit on the apartment floor, according to charging documents. Prosecutors contend Gooden held them there for about an hour and hit his daughter several times.

Gooden eventually discovered that there was an additional set of boy’s clothing, lying scattered about in his daughter’s bedroom. He threatened to start shooting up the closets, until he discovered the third member of the menage á trois in the bathtub. (Don’tcha know that porcelain got really cold? And remember what they say, “All men – and presumably boys – are equal in the cold.”)

“Gooden punched him in the chest and then tried to hit (the teen’s) face,” Kent Detective Matthew Holmes told the court. “Gooden had the pistol in his hand and told (the teen) to sit on the bed with the others.

Well, I guess his attorney can point to fact that he didn’t pistol-whip the kids as evidence of Gooden’s restraint?

Writing the court, the detective said Gooden held the three teens in the apartment for another hour. During that time, he is alleged to have slapped his daughter 50 to 100 times, leaving her face red and swollen.

You’ve got to wonder, what was the father’s end-game here. Seems, daddy did not have a winning exit plan in mind. After two hours of this fun-fest:

The girl’s boyfriend was eventually allowed to leave; he returned with his father, who called 911. Kent officers contacted Gooden and his daughter at 8:30 p.m.

Under the “Hey, I’ve got to live with him, so I’m willing to bend the truth a little to save my own promiscuous hide” clause, the 17-year-old offspring of our IGOTD claimed that he’d shoved her – once – and “displayed” his firearm, but she denied he’d pointed it at either of the kids, and denied he’d hit her.

It’s a far cry from “hit her 50 to 100 times, leaving her face red and swollen” to “he pushed me but never hit me.” I’m thinkin’ the forensics on that one are gonna make proving/disproving the physical assault charges (on her, anyway) pretty easy.

Dad’s account of the story is, shall we say, just a wee bit different from the picture painted by the two randy teens:

Speaking with police, Gooden said he was upset when the boy came out of the bathroom and yelled at him, according to charging documents. He allegedly went on to claim he realized his pistol was on his hip, so he went to his bedroom to put it in a dresser drawer.

Gooden, the detective told the court, claimed he threw items around the apartment and slapped his daughter’s arm after finding the naked youth but denied pointing a gun at anyone. Investigators noted that Gooden had a valid concealed weapons permit.

So Gooden was charged with Assault in the 2nd and 4th Degrees. (We’ll have to wait for the TTAG legal team to weigh in on the particulars of these charges. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.) He has not been jailed on the charges.

If I may stick my nose into this one, opinion-wise, I’d like to reiterate, I feel for the dad in this situation. But I think if the boy’s story is true, he screwed up, big time. (No comment on if the girl screwed up, but I think we can all presume that odds are, this wasn’t her first, um, rodeo, if you know what I mean and I think you do.) I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here – that Gooden is a single dad (no mom was mentioned in the article) and that (based on societal trends and her behavior) been what I’d see as fairly permissive. (I have no way of knowing this for a fact, of course, but go with me for a second.)

I can tell you that if you start to worry about your daughter’s sexual mores when she’s seventeen, it’s your own damn fault as to the way she behaves. The time to teach her the difference between right and wrong is back when she’s young enough that she’ll actually listen to you. Waiting until she’s seventeen to get all righteously indignant and go from “permissive” to “Puritanical” is just not gonna cut it. And this is NOT the kind of situation where unholstering (or even flashing) your concealed weapon is warranted, if that did actually happen.

If you buy the dad’s story, taking off your gun and ‘securing’ it in a dresser is equally-stupid. What would have prevented one of the kids from getting the gun and killing the dad?

Here’s what I (think) I would have done, had I been in Gooden’s shoes. I would have called the police. I would have gotten out my cell phone and started to document the scene with the video camera function. Nothing prurient – but to show the clothing in the bedroom. I would have demanded the boy(s) come out, and would have allowed them to cover themselves.

I would have insisted they stay, and when the police arrived, I would have filed charges against them for statutory rape, making them face the prospect of a lifetime labeled as “sex offenders.”

And then I would have packed up my daughter, put her in the Wagon Queen Family Truckster, and hied her to a nunnery, PDQ. But that’s just me.

So, congrats to Timothy Wayne Gooden, a dad who, understandably or not, is now likely facing jail time, the loss of his conceal carry permit, and a lifetime of membership in the annals of the TTAG Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day.


  1. avatar James Felix says:

    My take on this is (and granted I’m not a father) 17 is plenty old enough to be having consensual sex with someone around your own age. I can understand being taken aback when walking in on it but it surely does not warrant drawing on a kid. If the kid’s version of the story is even half-true this guy should do time.

    And on an unrelated note, would it have killed that photographer to move the camera lens 20 degrees to the left? I mean, damn.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      James, I don’t agree. Legally (in most places around the country, anyway) 18 is the ‘age of consent.” In my experience, 17-year-olds are, for the most part, not mature enough to make informed decisions about things that are as potentially life-changing as sex can be. As a former high-school teacher, I’ve had the opportunity to talk with teenagers about their feelings on sex. I’ve never met anybody – boy or girl – that wishes that they’d started having sex at a younger age, and a majority of them that wishes they’d waited. There’s a huge amount of societal pressure on kids today about sex, in the form of advertising, music videos, TV and movies. I get why they are seemingly obsessed with sex. But a father has a legal and moral right to guide and protect his kids, until they are legally of age.

      If he did draw on the kid, he should do time and lose his licence, no doubt.

      And I gotta agree on the photography thing, too. You’d be surprised at how stingy the Interwebz are with that soft-core crap from the A&F ‘catalog.’

      1. avatar James Felix says:

        I suspect that roughly 30 seconds after having a child I’d come around to your way of thinking. As it stands my last meaningful interaction with a teenager was when I was one myself, so my opinion in this case could be considered less than well-informed.

        Glad to see we agree on the most important point though.

      2. avatar ScottA says:

        Legally it was stupid but I’d rather have someone slap me a few times and tell me to never come back than get labeled as a sex offender. 17 year old girls are physically adults and it’s a new age thing that this suddenly makes someone a sex offender. I don’t care if my neighbor hooked up with some girl when he was 19 and she was 17 but I do care if my neighbor fondles prepubescent kids. The whole sex offender registry has become a joke. 15 year olds sexting pictures of themselves become sex offenders for life because it’s considered child porn. If your 17 year old daughter is a slut it’s because, as you said, she wasn’t taught receptive but being in denial that your kids will have sex before they are 18 is ignorant. Punishing the boys for a daughters lack of morals seems like misplaced blame to me. Although, now that the kid involved the authorities, I’d do everything I could to make his life miserable. It’s just stupid to involve the police after he got away without actually being harmed. He should have realized hooking up with someones daughter in their house won’t end well if he gets caught and with the emotions involved he’s probably lucky it ended how it did.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          I don’t think the kid involved the cops because the dad yelled at him, I think it was because the dad beat the crap out of the girl.

          I don’t know about you, but if my girlfriends dad beat her senseless, I’d be calling the cops (or getting my own gun, depending on my level of self control at the time – but really, I’d rather see the jerk dad get some good old fashioned prison rape than get a brief moment of enjoyment from killing him followed by ME getting prison raped).

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        The age of consent in Washington is 16 but only if the other party is less than five years older. Sex between a 16 yo and a 21 yo old is legal. Sex between a 16 yo and a 22 yo is a felony. What a difference a year makes! Otherwise, the unrestricted age of consent is 18.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Ah, here in Ohio the unrestricted age of consent is 16 (though most people haven’t read the law and due to tv shows, they assume that 16 is only legal for people under 21).

      4. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Actually you’re wrong. Most states in the US have 16 as the legal age of consent (a few are 17 and 18) and even then, they almost always allow exceptions if A) all members are under the age of consent or B) they are withing a certain distance of age (such as within 3 years of each others age).

        Sure, some people may regret having sex – but that’s their decision to make, not yours. It’s horribly hypocritical of you to be a “Don’t violate my rights and try to control me” gun owner and then consider your teenager to be your property that you can do with as you please. Especially by the time they are 16 or 17, they ARE an adult and capable of making their own decisions. Just because they can’t legally vote or sign a few other legal documents doesn’t make them sub-human.

        I’m sorry, but I think someone with your control issues shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun.

  2. avatar UathLibertarian says:

    I haven’t seen Lewis Grizzard’s definition of nekkid for years. Nice one.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      I couldn’t remember the source for that quip. I’m amending the article to give credit where credit is due. Thanks for the heads-up!

  3. avatar lolwut says:

    wait. so you’re saying that if it were you who found your sexually active 17 year-old daughter with two 16 year old boys, you would be inclined to have them arrested, charged, and labeled as sexual offenders? to what…teach them a lesson or something?

    i’m not saying what the father did was right. but putting aside the fact that (i don’t think) a 16 year-old can even be charged with statutory rape, do you really believe that your suggestion to essentially destroy a boy’s future is an appropriate response?

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      It doesn’t say how old the boys are. Assuming they are of-age (i.e.: 18 or older), I’d certainly get them arrested. I would consider dropping the charges later, in exchange for them leaving my daughter the Hell alone. I agree that sex offender laws need to take into account things like the consensual nature of contact, the relative ages of those involved, et cetera, but a seventeen-year-old girl is too young to be having sex. Period.

      I have a close friend of mine – a divorced, self-employed mom, who has a 17-year-old daughter who could be posing on the cover of any magazine. She looks older than she is. She’s got two guys hanging around her – a 26-year-old and a 21-year-old. I doubt if either of them are interesting in discussing Tolstoy or Keynesian Economic Theory with her. They want in her pants. And she is waaaay too immature to think things through – the risks of STDs, pregnancy, motherhood. The mom is gonna do anything she can to stop her daughter from screwing up the rest of her life. It’s not just about virginity. It’s about wanting a good life for her daughter.

      1. avatar lolwut says:

        Age is listed in the 2nd & 4th paragraphs:
        “King County prosecutors claim Timothy Wayne Gooden threatened to shoot the 16-year-old boy…”

        “Gooden’s daughter, her boyfriend and another 16-year-old boy were in the apartment…”

        So you would consider dropping any charges if they agreed to leave your daughter alone? Did your last name used to be Capulet or Montague?

        As you said yourself, by age 17: it’s your own damn fault as to the way she behaves. That being said, if your daughter still goes against the morals you’ve tried to instill in her (“but a seventeen-year-old girl is too young to be having sex. Period”), and decides to go ahead and have premarital sex at age 17, you would still choose to punish the boy for your “failing” as a parent?

      2. avatar Gage says:

        Brad, I’ve been through it with 2 daughters. 13 is literally a world away from 18 although it might not seem like it right now. Every father feels exactly the same way you do about their daughters but that will change once you learn (and trust) they can can make the right decisions and can take care of themselves. I can’t remotely say I’m an expert on this but my guess is you’ll bring her up right and in 5 years you will have tempered your thoughts on this a little bit. But, a little fear on the part of the “opposition” never hurts…!

    2. avatar James Felix says:

      “putting aside the fact that (i don’t think) a 16 year-old can even be charged with statutory rape…

      Actually in a lot of places they can be. And 16 year olds who send nude photos of themselves are sometimes charged as child pornographers. The dangerous absurdity of our sex offender laws could easily provide subject matter for a dedicated blog of its own.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Under Washington statutes, neither the boys nor the girl was guilty of a crime, only bad judgment.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Ralph, thanks for bringing that up. I did wonder about the pic. It has a bit of that Chippendale flavor to it. Is Brad a closet homosexual? Is that why he posts so many of those sexy chicks with guns, to throw us off the trail?

          Now, since I’m a completely liberated man as far as gay rights goes, that remark is not meant as a slur in any way. I haven’t made those kinds of jokes since I was in the Marines. If any of you take it that way or accuse me of homophobia, it’s on you.

        2. avatar James Felix says:

          Way to stay classy and on-topic, Mike.

        3. avatar William says:

          Really Mikeslotsofnumbers?

          Can someone remind me why this guy is not banned?

        4. avatar James Felix says:

          Because simply allowing him to talk is a far more eloquent argument against gun control than any of us could make.

        5. avatar William says:

          That is absolutely the best argument for his presence I have ever heard. I think it’s the only one that makes sense too.

        6. avatar Anon says:

          Because Robert only makes money if you bring in traffic, and MikeB brings in traffic like no one’s business.

          Gotta keep a pet troll around to rile up the natives.

        7. avatar Matt says:

          What would be the point of accusing a man who so openly admits to being in an undisclosed number of marines of homophobia? Hell, if you were making those sorts of jokes while in the marine I doubt you’re afaid of anything.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    I think Mr. Gooden showed admirable restraint. With lesser man, there would have been hair on the walls. So next time, boys, drop a double sawbuck on the nightstand so you can all stay friends. That’s twenty each. After a couple of years, Daddy will be able to buy a nice, new trailer.

  5. avatar Scott says:

    As the father of a 17 year old, I can say that I’ve often had the vision of me greeting every potential boyfriend with a wifebeater tee on cleaning a shotgun.

    It sounds like the father may have some issues if the one story is to be believed. In either case, I hope I never find myself in this situation.

  6. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    Now, how the hell did I miss this one? Oh, I know. There are so many stories in the news each day about CCW guys doing stupid shit, that no single man can keep up with them all.

    Thanks for helping out.

    1. avatar James Felix says:

      Ah, I see. So if you do find an anecdote it’s proof that all CCW holders are criminals and if you don’t find an anecdote… it’s proof that all CCW holders are criminals. Glad to see you’re a fan of the scientific method.

      In fact CCW holders are on average much more law abiding than the general population. Now, if you have some acutal data to dispute that I’d be happy to hear it, otherwise you’re just trumpeting your bigotry again.

      As usual.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        James, You’re doing that thing again. You’re accusing me of saying that which I did not say.

        “it’s proof that all CCW holders are criminals.” Did I ever say ALL?

        1. avatar James Felix says:

          Given your persistent tone and constant refusal to quantify anything I don’t think my conclusion was unwarranted. If I’m wrong then please correct me.

          What percentage of CCW holders, roughly, do you think criminally or near-criminally abuse their 2A rights? A few? Some? A lot? Most?

          The thing is, you’re doing that thing you do again too. You’re dropping snarky and insulting comments about gun owners while refusing to state a testable argument.

        2. avatar Raph84 says:


          Everyone knows exactly what you are doing. You are playing on the average citizen’s inability to recognize that correlation does not equal causation.

          So you continually paint CCW holders in a bad light any time you get the chance in the hope that people will jump to the illogical conclusion that you hold so dear

    2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      What…the Seattle P-I’s not a liberal-enough rag for you to follow? Seriously, Mikey, if you look at the total number of CHLs issued in the U.S., and add up the number of “stupid things” done (with guns) by holders of CHLs, you’d learn that, statistically, a CHL holder is much less likely (by several orders of magnitude) to do something really stupid with a gun (like, um, break the law) than someone would be who does not have a CHL. Given that, our IGOTD feature is open to anybody that does something stupid with a gun. Since that’s our criteria, you’d expect for us to highlight a disproportionately large number of CHL holders on the site, for that makes for interesting copy. To write about the millions upon millions of CHL holders that never break the law would make for as riveting a read as the platform of either the Democrats or Republicans at their respective national conventions.

    3. avatar ankle says:

      The big problem here is that you have to try — hard — to get data on legitimate gun uses by CCWs and others. They just don’t make the news much. If, for instance, some idiot comes trying to break into my house and I scare him off by demonstrating I’ve got a 12-gauge with his name on it, neither of us wants the publicity afterward. He’s in no mood to make the papers for attempted breaking and entering, and I don’t particularly want the attention from you and the Brady bunch coming to tell me how awful I am for protecting myself. So it doesn’t make the news. Idiots make the news; responsible people don’t. So if you want to find idiots, by all means keep your attention focused on the media. If you want to find a representative sample of the responsible side of things, get off your high horse and go talk to people at the range.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        That’s true ankle, but don’t forget all the illigitimate uses that don’t make the news either, you know the brandishings and threats that go unreported.

    4. avatar RuffRidr says:

      I came to this thread to see MikeB complain about the lack of clothing on the models in the posted picture. But it did not happen with these models for some reason. Odd that.

    5. avatar TTACer says:

      He didn’t shoot the kids, so how does this prove your (idiotic) point?

    6. avatar carrymagnum says:

      We all admire the hell out of you mike. Regardless of how unwanted you are ya just keep rearing your ugly head. There’s something to be said about persistence.

  7. avatar Charles says:

    “I can tell you that if you start to worry about your daughter’s sexual mores when she’s seventeen, it’s your own damn fault as to the way she behaves. The time to teach her the difference between right and wrong is back when she’s young enough that she’ll actually listen to you. Waiting until she’s seventeen to get all righteously indignant and go from “permissive” to “Puritanical” is just not gonna cut it.”

    Yes! There’s a reason those early years are called formative. Parents of young children need to realize a profound truth: somebody has to be the boss. I know, many adults are quite immature, but taking responsibility for your child’s future is a good first step to growing up.

  8. avatar yakima2k says:

    At least in NC, the age of consent is 16, and even if one of the participants were under 16, it’s not statutory rape unless the oldest participant is at least 4 years older than his/her partner.

    Using Google, it appears the age of consent in WA is 16 if the older partner is less than 5 years older, otherwise it’s 18.

  9. avatar Don Curton says:

    From a slightly different perspective …

    Did this house not have windows? I mean, holy hell, Daddy comes home with a gun and no one thinks to crawl out a window and run away? What’s with kids these days.

  10. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    Brad: I’m headed to court now (ironically for a Statutory Rape case) but I’ll check back in for a licensed Washington State legal commentary later.

    1. avatar Bob H says:

      I hope you don’t get convicted! We would miss you.

  11. avatar Sid says:

    As a father of a young girl, I have a different perspective. They are lucky that a forensic team is not measuring and photographing the upper floor of the house and the front yard. You would be amazed at how much blood can come out of the human body when shoved butt naked out a closed window. The investigator may be scratching his head and saying “so he picked a 16 year-old male up and physically threw him through an exterior wall?” “The second boy was lucky that the first boy had already made a hole in the wall. That is why he landed closer to the street. I guess?”

    Should he have shot the young Lotharios? No. Should he have pointed his gun at them? No. Should he have kicked their butts up between their ears? Yes.

    Now, when disgruntled dad and his errant son return to my house to complain about the condition of his son’s ass which my boot is still hanging out of ….. the police are going to need to tape off the scene and remove the bodies.

    My wife and I live our lives as examples to our children. That is the solemn oath we took at their baptisms and we meant it. A great deal of the restraint I apply every day is due to the fact that 4 little eyeballs look to me as a role model. I love them. I want them to make better choices in their lives. I would hope that my children will live happy lives based on good choices.

    He should not have pointed his gun at the boys. He should have kicked the shit out of them. And sent her to live with the nuns or some spinster aunts who live in a cabin 25 miles from the paved road. I don’t believe that the police need to be involved in this one other than to say “hey, kids, stay the hell away from each other because we are lucky no one got seriously hurt this time.” No sex offender registry. No assault charges in any degree.

    Thankfully, she is not pregnant and the boys are alive. The use of a gun is the least of our worries.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      Sid, I’m completely with you on the “live by example” idea. In an earlier time, the whole “kick the shit out of the little bastards” would have been my go-to strategy as well. But in the litigious age in which we live, I’m afraid that might have been mighty satisfying, but ultimately a bad strategy. I think the boy’s father(s) would have pressed charges against ME for assault, and depending on how liberal the judge/area is (Washington State is pretty liberal), I suspect that I’d be looking at some time in the slammer. The boys undoubtedly deserved to be punished, as does the girl. And by “punished” I mean “scared straight” with “tough love” or whatever they call real discipline now-a-days.

      There’s several issues here – was the daughter brought up to respect limits – or herself? Obviously not. Were the boys up to no good, and should they be disciplined corporal punishment style? In my book, you bet. Did the dad overreact? I suspect he did, especially if the gun was involved in any way other than they noticed him printing beneath his shirt. Is our society too permissive, too eager to punish the parents, too eager to allow the kids to get off scott-free, and too willing to seduce kids with inappropriate messages/images in the media? YES.

      In the current context, I stand by my sentiments. I don’t like getting the law involved, but if Society ties my hands in dealing with randy teens and a slutty daughter, then I’ll try and use their rules to make the best of a bad situation.

      1. avatar NeonCat says:

        And you know, you know nothing about this young woman besides the fact that she has (evidently) more open views on sexuality, fewer hang-ups, than you do. And for that you call her a harlot and a slut.

        You should be ashamed, but you won’t be.

        1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          Why should I be ashamed, exactly? I’m a dad. I have a teenage daughter. If she behaved the way this girl did, THEN I’d be ashamed. Seventeen is too young to be having sex. Period. And having a three-way is waaaaay outside the bounds for a teenager. I suspect, NeonCat, that you are either a teen yourself, or not too far removed from your teen years.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          “Seventeen is too young to be having sex.”

          When I was 17, it seemed about right to me.

        3. avatar lolwut says:

          well you’re a guy. so it was okay…as long as the girl was older than you.

          (perhaps this is why there are so many male students engaging with their cougar teachers)

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          My female teachers weren’t cougars, they were water buffaloes.

        5. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Oooh, Brad, I can play this game! Balding guys with goatees and glasses are too young to be having sex. And having the responsibility to raise a child is waaaaaaay outside the bounds for someone of such low maturity.

          “I suspect, NeonCat, that you are either a teen yourself, or not too far removed from your teen years.”

          To use a quote from Harry Potter, “Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young.”

          You know damn well that you were capable of making that decision (and many others)when you were that age.

      2. avatar Slick Nick says:

        “There’s several issues here – was the daughter brought up to respect limits – or herself? Obviously not.”

        Whoa whoa whoa. You honestly believe because someone had sex before the government says its ok to do so, that they do not respect limits or themselves?

        When you go slightly over the speed limit on the highway, do you slap the shit out of yourself for disrespecting authority and obviously disrespecting yourself, as you are potentially putting your life and other lives at risk?

        Comment on the situation, not that character and morals of someone you know nothing about.

  12. avatar NeonCat says:

    Reading the comments, I don’t know if gun owners are nuts (and as a gun owner myself, I hope not), but it sure as hell seems like parents are.

    Your young adults, in all likelihood, are going to have sex. They will have sex before you think they are ready. They will make mistakes, hopefully not including getting pregnant or catching a disease. You don’t have to like this fact, but it is true. And they will like having sex, in all likelihood, and may even have varieties of sex that you do not approve of – frankly, it isn’t any of your business. Yes, yes, yes, your house, your rules, all that noble sounding stuff that you will use to defend this moron who lost his cool, beat his daughter and threatened two young men who were doing nothing illegal or unwelcome to her.

    It sounds like Victorian era garbage – you have to protect your daughters’ maidenheads, their purity, or the world will come crashing to an end. Why do I suspect that most of you hearing about a boy caught with two naked girls would want to high-five him?

    I don’t ever want to become a parent. It seems like it turns one into a paranoid nutter.

    And now you can make comments about how attitudes like mine represent the moral decay of our once great nation, how the permissiveness that I evidently believe in has lead to the decline of the republic, Jersey Shore and the fact that if you could find a good 5 cent cigar you couldn’t find anywhere to smoke it.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      Speaking for the parents that read this site, I’d second your notion of not ever wanting to become a parent.

      Speaking for myself, I hope you either take every precaution when you engage in sexual activity with anyone other than yourself. Better still, perhaps you’d be willing to make an, um, vas deferens and go all the way with a permanent solution.

      Unfortunately, teen sex IS an issue that melds things like teen pregnancy, costs of entitlements, tax rates, deficits and other pressing social issues with the concept of morals. Like it or not, when there are societal pressures to NOT have sex and/or make babies at an early age, there are fewer unwanted kids, fewer teen moms, fewer abortions, and a reduced cost for entitlements where our society is forced to support teens that have made bad choices. In other words, you can mock my generation’s and my parents’ generations morals. But sometimes, the old ways ARE the best ways. Now, if you want to convince me otherwise, go find me a teen mom who doesn’t wish she’d waited. Go ahead. Find her. I’ll wait.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Or you know, more abortions fixes all of those issues. But you’re against that and for being a controlling jackass. You are a prime example of one of the reasons why I will never have kids – because every parent is an jackass and I don’t want to become one too.

        1. avatar Raph84 says:


          I’m not anti-sex, or anti-abortion, but it is not the magical fix it wrench you make it out to be. There are plenty of medical risks that abortion increases (cervical issues, future sterility, etc).

          Also it does not deal with the issues of safe sex in teens (which recent studies have shown teens are being less and less safe).

          There may be exceptions, but the vast majority of teens today are not capable of making informed sensible risk analysis of their own sexual behavior. They can make a decision…but it is generally not a decision administrated by their higher brain

        2. avatar carrymagnum says:

          And you obviously don’t understand the weight that abortion will be for the rest of a women’s life. An abortion is not a panacea. It has it’s downsides.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Yes, NeonCat, all parents are crazy. Guess who made them that way?

      BTW, I’m thinking that two guys, one girl definititely isn’t an affair of the heart. However, it might be the prelude to sharing a few Oxys or a bag or two. Just saying.

  13. avatar James Felix says:

    Yes, yes, yes, your house, your rules, all that noble sounding stuff that you will use to defend this moron who lost his cool, beat his daughter and threatened two young men who were doing nothing illegal or unwelcome to her.

    Well, in fairness I don’t think anyone here has actually defended this man’s conduct. Indeed, just including him in the IGOTD category is a stamp of disapproval in itself.

    It sounds like Victorian era garbage – you have to protect your daughters’ maidenheads, their purity, or the world will come crashing to an end.

    I think you’re doing the parents here a disservice. I’m perfectly willing to take them at their words that they’re concerned for their children’s physical and emotional wellbeing.

    And keep in mind you and I are basically on the same page on this issue, although I can’t help but wonder if that’s explained by our neither being nor desiring to be parents.

    Reading the comments, I don’t know if gun owners are nuts (and as a gun owner myself, I hope not), but it sure as hell seems like parents are.

    Tip for the future: if you’re going to make a comment decrying sweeping, judgemental generalizations it’s best not to open your post with one.

  14. avatar Patrick B. says:

    Wow, you’d think there’s something new about teens having sex.

    A 17-year-old can enter the military (with parental consent or as an emancipated minor), so I guess it’s ok to go to war, but not have sex at that age.

    Would you disown your daughter if she had sex before the age of consent? Or before marriage? Have you thought beyond what you would do to the boy(s), and instead thought about how you would treat your daughter? Tattoos are a big hit these days, maybe an “A” on her bosom would be reasonable punishment…

    As the father of two daughters (and two sons) I have elected to avoid the head-in-the-sand approach to raising children. I’ve done my best to encourage smart, responsible behavior. Kids do stuff. Shit happens.

    (And Mr. Gooden certainly earned his spot for the IGOD)

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “A 17-year-old can enter the military (with parental consent or as an emancipated minor), so I guess it’s ok to go to war, but not have sex at that age.”

      Nor buy a rifle or handgun, nor have a beer, nor a lot of other things.

      The age restriction is there to prohibit predation. Nobody wants older adults f^cking kids, Patrick. That’s why in New York, for example, the age of consent reaches as low as 14 as long as the other person is also very young. “Full consent” occurs at 17, when a teen girl is fair game for any chicken hawk with a good line of sh!t and enough money to buy her a cheap necklace.

      1. avatar Patrick B. says:

        Gotta teach my girls to stay away from the dirty old men and know how to spot cheap jewelry….

  15. avatar Magoo says:

    Brad Kozak says: “I can understand why a dad would want to go all Dirty Harry on not one, but two nekkid boys (…) found in his home with an equally-nekkid daughter.”

    The story doesn’t say the three teens were naked. The story states only that the second boy was discovered naked in the bathroom, with his clothes on the floor of the girl’s bedroom. But as far as we know from the text of the news story, the girl and the first boy were fully clothed. The news story identifies the second (naked) boy as the girl’s boyfriend, and the first boy as his friend. But nowhere does the story say that the girl or the first boy were naked. Or the father, for that matter.

    From the news story: “Gooden eventually discovered boy’s clothing in his daughter’s bedroom and realized there was a third person hiding in the apartment.”

  16. avatar James Felix says:

    I feel compelled to point out (yeah, I know you’re shocked) that this thread has become a disgreement not about guns but about parenting. Everyone seems to agree that Mr. Gooden was wrong to react the way he did, to the extent that he did, and most likely deserves to wear some shiny new bracelets.

    And I feel perfectly secure saying that if Magoo and I agree on something then the issue can be considered settled.

    The only controversy now seems to be on the relative merits of teenage sex and the parental reaction to it.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “And I feel perfectly secure saying that if Magoo and I agree on something then the issue can be considered settled.”

      I would consider it reason to question my sanity.

      “The only controversy now seems to be on the relative merits of teenage sex and the parental reaction to it.”

      I was in favor of teenage sex before I was against it. Now that my own offspring is well above the age of consent, it would not be possible for me to care less about it. But it does make for a fun discussion with many fine opportunites for locker room humor.

      1. avatar James Felix says:

        Ralph, I’m waiting for the day you stop being so shy, come out of your shell and feel free to really speak your mind. 🙂

  17. avatar matt says:

    Did you think this article through? What makes those boys guilty of statutory rape? Since your hypothetical 17 year old daughter is older than those two 16 year old boys, wouldn’t she be the one taking advantage of their innocence? How would you even find out their age? Violate their 4th amendment rights? Call the cops? How do you plan on legally detaining them until the cops arrive? What probably cause would the cops have? They are there as invited guests.

    1. avatar Gossven says:

      In Washington state they aren’t guilty of anything except bad judgment.

      1. avatar Magoo says:

        Maybe not even that. It’s possible the boy was only using the shower. The bulk of this story is rooted in the dirty minds of adults. We managed to turn one naked kid in a bathtub into a Penthouse Forum letter with no evidence at all. Think what we could do with some real material.

        What I learned from raising kids: Never underestimate or overestimate their innocence. Or their maturity. They never stop surprising you.

        1. avatar Gossven says:

          After carefully re-reading the article from the original source I’d still call it bad judgment. Assuming they’re completely innocent why did she hide her boyfriend in the bathroom? If her father had a strict “no boys in the house while I’m not here” rule than she made a poor decision in breaking that rule, which she then compounded by hiding him in the bathroom in his birthday suit.

          Did the father over-react?Probably…or maybe not. Unfortunately there are only 4 people who know the truth and they’re telling different stories.

  18. avatar Van says:

    I’m just glad I don’t have kids.

  19. avatar Rebecca says:

    I just want to point out that when Shakespeare wrote the line, “hie thee to a nunnery”, a nunnery was a house of ill repute; i.e., a brothel.

    Just sayin’. 🙂

    1. avatar William says:

      While figures of speech do exist, they do not necessarily trump the original meaning of a word. So I am not sure Hamlet was telling Ophelia to become a prostitute. When he first tells her to go to the nunnery, he finishes the thought by asking her why she should want to breed sinners. Likely, all know that prostitutes are not immune to pregnancy.

      So, nunnery could be a double entendre, but given the other things Hamlet says, Shakespeare may have been using nunnery to refer to a nunnery.

      Sorry – couldn’t help joining in. I enjoy Shakespeare.

  20. avatar Joe Grine says:

    Quote: “I would have insisted they stay, and when the police arrived, I would have filed charges against them for statutory rape, making them face the prospect of a lifetime labeled as ‘sex offenders.’”

    Bad move on a couple of levels. First of all, forcibly detaining someone against their will is a crime in and of itself, and can also lead to you being on the wrong end of a civil suit. You only have a legal right to hold someone against their will if you are making a “citizen’s arrest” or if you are legally “detaining” a person you witnessed committing a serious crime (theft, assault, etc). . The rules on this type of arrest / detention vary from state to state, and sometimes only apply to felonies. Unless you are 100% sure you are on the right side of the law, I would not attempt a citizen’s arrest or detention. If you guess wrong about your right to arrest or detain, its strict liability in most cases. Also, Police in most jurisdictions don’t take kindly to some bubba wanting to play cop. Second, if the boys are the same age as the girl, it ain’t statutory rape. BTW, moving the person you are detaining is even riskier, since if it is not justified that it will almost certainly be considered a kidnapping.

  21. avatar Joe Grine says:

    Quote from original article: According to charging documents, Gooden told the boy he “knew the gun laws and could shoot (him) for breaking and entering.” “I have every right now to blow your brains out!” Gooden is alleged to have said.

    The crime of “burglary” (aka “breaking and entering”) typically requires that the entry was made WITHOUT CONSENT of someone who the accussed reasonably thought had the authority to grant consent. It sometimes requires the further intent to commit a crime such as theft, etc.

    Also, the “castle doctrine” most certainly does not apply here because Gooden would need to have reasonably believed that the boys intended to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon him – which seems unlikely.

  22. avatar Magoo says:

    Gossven says: “After carefully re-reading the article from the original source I’d still call it bad judgment. Assuming they’re completely innocent why did she hide her boyfriend in the bathroom?”

    Because her father is a hysterical, violent nutjob and carries a gun?

    Kids are kids. They are going to try to live their lives as kids, exercising their innocence as best they can amid the harsh realities around them. If there is one thing we know about kids, it is that they will take incredible risks just to do the things kids want to do. This is an eternal quality in young people. Times change; kids don’t. See Romeo and Juliet, et al.

    1. avatar Gossven says:

      I’m not arguing that her father isn’t a total wackadoo. And I agree kids will be kids, but she displayed bad judgment in thinking her Benny hill/threes company style ruse would work in keeping her out of trouble. Now if the apartment had a long hallway with a series of doors that you could run in and magically appear further down the hall I would be willing to cut her a break on thinking it might work.

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