• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Teen Shot 3 Times During Toilet Paper Prank

At the very least, stepping out into a confrontation without knowing what is going on is a dumb thing to do. The shooter was clearly not very smart to not do a little recon first. Plus leaving the protection of his home was also not the brightest move in the world.

Doesn't matter that no one should have been there, or that I was surprised, or that I did not know the relatively benign explanation for her presence there, etc. I am responsible for whatever actions I perform and am responsible for understanding the context of the situation I am in. So was this guy in MI. Barring any really convincing mitigating circumstance, which I grant all skeptics is possible.

+1
 
Last edited:
If I saw several guys at my backyard at night, I would think they are attempting to break into my house and steal my stuff and, possibly, also harm me and my family. This is already a good reason to shoot.
Hope this kid and others had learned the lesson.
 
If I saw several guys at my backyard at night, I would think they are attempting to break into my house and steal my stuff and, possibly, also harm me and my family. This is already a good reason to shoot.
Hope this kid and others had learned the lesson.

Yes, but think about the benefits of stayin in your home as snapshot pointed out. There are walls and windows between you and them. You know the layout of the building, they don't. You see them and hear them, they don't know where you are. You're huddled up with your phone, family, ammo, and a gun between all of that and the bad guys. You have the cops on the way to go and clear the outsides of your house. That's what we are paying them for, it's their ass on the line for that stuff as far as I'm concerned. I know that my family is safer when they are in a speciffic location within my home and the only way to get there is to go through me and mossberg.
 
Again, we don't know that he shot at the kid three times, only that he was hit with three pellets.

Here, let me say it again so no one else misses it.


We don't know that he shot at the kid three times, only that he was hit with three pellets!!!
 
Again, we don't know that he shot at the kid three times, only that he was hit with three pellets.

Here, let me say it again so no one else misses it.


We don't know that he shot at the kid three times, only that he was hit with three pellets!!!

No....
From one article
Police say three shots were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, striking the 14-year-old in the chest, stomach and leg
and from the other...
the 14-year-old shooting victim, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries when he was hit with pellets from a 12-gauge shotgun,

Not sure where three pellets comes from, but this clearly said three shots.
 
Those quotes make it not one bitter more clear how many shots hit the kid. Remember, this is the media that we are always criticizing for not knowing shit about guns that you are quoting. If he was hit by "three shots" from a shotgun, he'd have way more than three holes in him. I'd guess he was hit by pellets from one of the shots and the other two missed. That's just a guess though, and chances are we'll never know the complete story.
 
The whole article was poorly written and left out the most basic of facts.

If it was you and there were kids (punks?) running around at 1:00am from different directions, how would you react?

Let's keep in mind the liberal media will present any situation from which ever angle that best suits their purpose. [frown]

Piss poor journalism at best, per the norm.
 
There is always this kind of ammo and depending on the distance from the mans shotgun to the perp 3 of the projectiles from this shotgun shell may have hit him as described from one SHELL.

There is also a 2,3,4 projectile type of shotgun shell that may have been used I couldn't find a pic of it in the limited time I took to find the other info but YES the kind of shotgun ammo is available that could create a would as is described from one pull of the trigger.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=377126
125051_ts.JPG
125051i_ts.JPG



ALS3705.jpg

ALS3705
Interlocking Rubber Batons (3 batons), (37/40mm)

Description: The most advanced direct fire 37/40 mm round available. It was designed for the Marine Corps and fires three each, 21gram, 35 durometer rubber projectiles at 260 fps +/- 20 fps. This round was designed for single or multiple target engagement allowing escalation of force from a safe distance prior to use of lethal means.

Background: The INTERLOCKING RUBBER BATON ROUND was developed to overcome the shortcomings of conventional rubber ammunition. Most rubber ammunition is designed to be skip fired off the ground into the target. This form of firing can be adversely affected by snow, mud, and soft grassy terrain. The INTERLOCKING RUBBER BATON is designed as a direct fire, behavior modification round which is fired using conventional target acquisition techniques. The INTERLOCKING RUBBER BATON can also be skip fired in close proximity situations.




Nwanner, please re-read the opening post and article. Despite the writing style and lacking forensic information, it clearly states

So those are 3 separate shots from the shot gun.

Not sure which shotgun you are familiar with, but I know of no shell that fires 3 pellets. Your gun knowledge may be far greater than mine however, I'm willing to yield if so.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to condemn the guy, although I will try my absolute best to ensure that the threat is real and not perceived.

I'm not going to condemn the kids, but committing a minor crime "prank" at night in a high crime puts you at a serious risk of mistaken identity/ mistaken intentions.

Since we will most likely never know the actual details, what should we take away from this? Rather than playing judge & jury, we should use the benefit of hindsight to think about what we would have done, not to condemn those who didn't have hours to debate over it, but to help us think about how to avoid future problems.
 
Since we will most likely never know the actual details, what should we take away from this? Rather than playing judge & jury, we should use the benefit of hindsight to think about what we would have done, not to condemn those who didn't have hours to debate over it, but to help us think about how to avoid future problems.
You're spoiling the fun for all the Monday morning quarterbacks out there, you know. Well said. +1 for you, sir.
 
Yes, but think about the benefits of stayin in your home as snapshot pointed out. There are walls and windows between you and them. You know the layout of the building, they don't. You see them and hear them, they don't know where you are. You're huddled up with your phone, family, ammo, and a gun between all of that and the bad guys. You have the cops on the way to go and clear the outsides of your house. That's what we are paying them for, it's their ass on the line for that stuff as far as I'm concerned. I know that my family is safer when they are in a speciffic location within my home and the only way to get there is to go through me and mossberg.


FTWMF

This idiot should have stayed in his house.
 
Like the chief said in Apocalypse Now, "Never get out of the boat."

Maybe it's my MA paranoia, but if there's a door separating me inside from the bad guy outside, I call the cops first. Rushing outside is looking for trouble.

Flame on.
 
Either way the shooter needs to go to prison.

Spare me the, 'victim got what was coming for trespassing' statements, I agree with it.
But the shooter lit his target up three times so he clearly identified it.

And in bad taste this should settle the birdshot vs. slugs argument.

Ah, looking at things through the ma**h*** lens again, I see......[rolleyes]
 
IMHO the most damning factor is that he fired three shots.
God help you if you have to ever defend yourself or your loved ones with this attitude.

I don't know about you, but if I reasonably believe that I am in danger of being killed or severely hurt, I am not done shooting until a) I am out of ammo or b) the threat has ceased, whichever comes first.

[rolleyes]
 
***UPDATE***

http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/10/alleged_shooter_of_pranksters.html

medium_300-newell.jpg

GRAND RAPIDS -- With their car still running and headlights left on to better see the bushes they started toilet-papering in the middle of the night, Michael Newville said he and his church friends didn't think they were doing anything wrong to their friend's house with their pre-Halloween prank.

Until it got scary -- and one of them, 14-year-old Zachary VanderArk, got shot.

"We got a third of the bush done and all of a sudden a shot rang out, it sounded like an M-80. I told everyone to run to the car," recalled Newville, 22.

The prank was a spur-of-the-moment deal for five friends having a sleepover near Cedar Springs.

It was a typical Saturday night for Newville, of Grand Rapids, who said he went to work then headed to Cedar Springs where he had to get up at 8 a.m. for Sunday church with the same friends. He declined to name the church.

Believing that a mutual friend's family was out of town, one of the friends in the car said, "Let's go to Matt's house and pull a prank," Newville said. They did not realize their friend's father, 51-year-old Mark Kuncaitis, had stayed behind in the Solon Township home.

Kuncaitis, charged Wednesday with the misdemeanor reckless use of a firearm causing injury, said the Oct. 12 shooting was simply a regretful mistake he made out of fear of being robbed and possibly hurt. If convicted, he faces up to two years in jail.

"I'm very sorry. It's very traumatic," he said outside Rockford District Court. "I would never have shot at kids if I had known, not in a million years."

Police allege Kuncaitis fired a 12-gauge shotgun three times in the dark toward people he thought were thieves getting into his unattached garage. They turned out to be Newville and four teens toilet-papering his yard.

A court affidavit names the teens as VanderArk, Ryan Maike, David Rethamel and Christopher Harthorn, 18, with Newville driving everyone to the house. Prosecutors say all are being charged with trespassing, although only Newville had been charged as of Wednesday. He pleaded guilty and was fined $100.

Kuncaitis said the pranksters looked like five men to him.

"I feared for my life. I'm a disabled person. There's murders going on all around," he said, earlier telling police he was worried because of recent killings near Conklin and Kent County's Oakfield Township. "I figured they weren't coming to sell Mary Kay," Kuncaitis said.

Newville said he was surprised by the gunshot. He told his friends to run to the car.

Newville guessed they were between 6 and 10 feet from the car, "then a second shot rang out and blew out my window. I didn't know what to think," he said.

"You'd think he'd (Kuncaitis) warn us verbally. We would have dropped everything and cleaned up as well. We pulled out the drive and Zack said he felt pain," Newville said.

Kuncaitis told police he fired a warning shot above the car, then fired another to "mark" the car so police could track it down and finally fired a third time as it was pulling away. He never saw any toilet paper.

Police say VanderArk was hit by six pellets from the second shot, fired from about 60 yards away, but managed to scramble into the car. The teenager, a freshman at Cedar Springs High School, is recovering at home and expects to return to school next week, a family member said. VanderArk still has some of the pellets in his body while others were removed at the hospital.

The friends scampered into Newville's 2000 Dodge Neon. The 14-year-old was bleeding from the shotgun pellets that also ripped more than a dozen holes in Newville's passenger door.

Then the third blast came as he drove away, taking out his back window.

"The shots were really close and we got out of there in less than a minute. We noticed he had two bullets in his side and leg," 18-year-old Christopher Harthorn said of VanderArk.

Newville said his friends, "were really scared, had an adrenaline rush and were freakin' out. We were scared about getting out of there alive. It's not everyday you get shot at for TP.

"I don't know how I had the concentration to drive. We're all just thankful Zack is still alive. It could have been way worse," Newville said.

He'd rather not see anyone be criminally charged, but said he understand there are consequences.

"I guess we are all at fault for something, but I don't think he had a right to fire shots making contact with Zack."

VanderArk is not holding a grudge. He spent time with Mark Kuncaitis' son last weekend playing video games, Kuncaitis said.

VanderArk's grandmother declined to discuss the family's feelings about the shooting or the charges issued by Forsyth. No one answered the door at the house the teen and his mother share in Algoma Township.

Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth said he thought the charges were fair.

"By all accounts, the homeowner is an upstanding citizen. He's never been in trouble. The kids made a dumb mistake and he probably overreacted to someone being there at the house," said the prosecutor.

Forsyth said he considered more serious charges, such as a felony assault charge, but decided against it.

With his clean record I would be surprised if he saw any jail time.
 
call me crazy, but i want to be 100% sure of what or who im shooting at before i use lethal force. a shotgun isnt used to shoot 1st, ask questions later.
 
I still think he belongs in jail. If you are such a moron that you go shooting your 12 gauge into the dark at totally unidentified bumps in the night, you shouldn't have a gun. He didnt even know they were TPing, so it could have been quite literally anyone out there in his yard...he's lucky it wasn't a few cops investigating a call who he took pot shots at.

-Him leaving the saftey of his house shows me he wasn't in fear of his life.
-Him "marking" the car shows that he wasn't shooting in self defense.

Im sure people will continue to defend him simply because he's a fellow gun owner, but these arent the kinds of people we need around to demonstrate what responsible gun owners are like.
 
I still think he belongs in jail. If you are such a moron that you go shooting your 12 gauge into the dark at totally unidentified bumps in the night, you shouldn't have a gun. He didnt even know they were TPing, so it could have been quite literally anyone out there in his yard...he's lucky it wasn't a few cops investigating a call who he took pot shots at.

-Him leaving the saftey of his house shows me he wasn't in fear of his life.
-Him "marking" the car shows that he wasn't shooting in self defense.

Im sure people will continue to defend him simply because he's a fellow gun owner, but these arent the kinds of people we need around to demonstrate what responsible gun owners are like.
So you identify yourself in the dark first so the burgalar can shoot instead of you shooting him? I think the charge is BS, he had all the rights to shoot at those kids who were on his property after dark. Only in America can someone else violate your property and have you in trouble for defending it.

Whats amazing is that if the story had been, man fends off 4 home invaders with shotgun, we'd all be patting him on the back right now.
 
Last edited:
So you identify yourself in the dark first so the burgalar can shoot instead of you shooting him? I think the charge is BS, he had all the rights to shoot at those kids who were on his property after dark. Only in America can someone else violate your property and have you in trouble for defending it.

Whats amazing is that if the story had been, man fends off 4 home invaders with shotgun, we'd all be patting him on the back right now.

No, I stay in my house and I identify my target, not myself.

You're right...if he defended against home invaders, I would be patting him on the back. He didn't do that. He left his house and took pot shots off into the dark.

I love how he says "Im disabled!" yet he was the one who went outside looking for the danger of which he was deathly afraid.
 
You're right...if he defended against home invaders, I would be patting him on the back. He didn't do that. He left his house and took pot shots off into the dark.

That sums it up. Another twit who runs outside, blazes away with no immediate threat present and then claims he was defending his disabled ass. Pathetic.

Note also that the subsequent article effectively disposes of two red herrings posted repeatedly on this thread:

1. The homeowner was NOT using "birdshot" (which would not even have penetrated the car door, still less put 1/4" holes through it); and

2. The victim did NOT receive a mere "3 pellets."

There is stupidity on all sides, but the greatest irresponsibility was that of the moron shooter, first firing the counterproductive "warning shot" and then "marking" the car full of kids - twice - by pouring buckshot into it as it LEFT the property he was ostensibly defending.

Send him a case of KY for Christmas.......
 
I can't help but wonder, what if it had been his own son out screwing around in the garage at 1am...
 
Last edited:
Even if you think someone is trying to break in your house,why would you open the door and go outside?What kind of tactic is that?
 
You're right...if he defended against home invaders, I would be patting him on the back. He didn't do that. He left his house and took pot shots off into the dark.


Exactly!!

I love how he says "Im disabled!" yet he was the one who went outside looking for the danger of which he was deathly afraid.


I recently had a motion to supress in district court. The issue was of consent given to me by a father to search his vehicle that his 18 year old son had been driving. The car was suspected as being involved in a drive by shooting.

The father was very cooperative and gave consent (verbal and written). I susbsequently found shell casings inside the vehicle linking it to the shooting.

The father showed up at court in a wheelchair and put on a grand production about how disabled he was. He had to have the court officers help him move around. He kept moaning and groaning about his pain. He told the judge that I strongarmed him and coerced him into giving consent and would not let him sit down until he signed the consent form.

The judge ruled in my favor.

I still see this man a couple of times a week at my daughters school walking around just fine. I always make it a point to say to him that his doctor must be a miracle worker.

You sometimes can't make this stuff up!!![laugh]
 
Back
Top Bottom