Uhhh. I doubt it. At most, they woulda whooped his ass. He had no right to shoot them.

Still not enough reason to use a gun.

It was May 7, 2007, when Roderick Buycks Jr. along with three other friends came to Brooks' apartment just west of the California State University, Fresno, campus. The four were looking for Buyck's stolen PS2, which Brooks insisted that he didn't nick, but the four kept arguing with him. Brooks went back to his bedroom, grabbed his .22-caliber revolver, shooting Buyck in the neck, the two others, but Buyck's friend Brant Daniels was killed in the incident.

When he went into the bedroom, he could have called the police, or let them take the PS2. When your life is in dangers, you don't have time to go get your gun and come back to the scene.

That said, a man does have a right to defend his life with deadly force. However, in this case, if they let this kid get away with claiming self defense, then EVERYONE who ever shot somebody could claim the same thing. Self defense shootings must stand up to very rigirous investigations. This one doesn't.

A few things could change and this would be plausible.

If the defendant lived on private land, and not an apartment complex with a legal right of way and assumption of saftey..

If the victims broke in to the apartment, rather than ran in.

If the defendant's apartment door has been closed.

If the gun wasn't in the bedroom.

If this didn't take place in California.

If Brooks didn't have a reputation for immaturity and irresponsibility related to firearm culture.

If Brooks only fired 1 shot.

If Brooks called the police before the shooting.

If Brooks hasn't ran away after the shooting.

All of those things would vastly change the circumstances.

As it stands now, the judge did what's expected of him, as he should. That story is bogus. On these forums, we judge things by what we can prove. In court, you judge things by what a reasonable man would deduce. Absolute proof is never required. That is a common misconception.

The media shits me off

" and now he will be spending the rest of his life in prison all because of a dispute rooted from an allegedly stolen PlayStation 2. Violent video games again? Not this time.

Prosecutor Burton Francis said that Brooks liked to flash a gun, deal drugs, and act like 'a wannabe gangster.' "

The dispute was not rooted in a stolen PS2, it was rooted in this guy's inability to control his emotions, just because something happened shortly before something else, doesn't mean it caused it.

I think you just reach badass status.

Stupid kid has thrown away his entire life. It's over. I bet when he got that gun, he thought he was so cool. He thought, "I'm a gangsta. Nobody better fuck with me." He's got the rest of his life to think about what he could have done differently.

I don't know... it seems like he relaxing at his own place, and 4 kids randomly barged in all pissed off, accusing him of stealing something he didn't. That's not to say it's not possible the kid is a prick, but I don't think we should just listen to the prosecutor blindly. I mean, it's the prosecutor's (and the defendant's) job to spin things.

The prosecutor says "He's a cocky wanabe gangster"

The defendant says "He's a honest boy that was scared".

The only thing we know for sure is that the kid didn't steal anything, and he didn't initiate anything, but was inside his home.

I'm going to have to agree with Zenfolder on this one......as much as it pains me.

Oh wait, we know one more thing - he was 17, with a gun that he wasn't supposed to be using. Little facts like that go a long way to making the jury see "cocky wannabe gangster" as the most likely truth.

Every man/woman is given the right to carry a gun - it doesn't mean they should have it. In some countries, you have the right to treat women like property - doesn't make it right either. Irresponsible people ABSOLUTELY should lose the "right" to wield firearms. Spend their life in prison when they mess up? It's easy to say that, but 'messing' up with a gun, like in this situation, means you spend life in prison, someone else is six feet under. I'm sure their family and friends are glad irresponsible people have the freedom to wield deadly weapons.

Without freedom whats' the point of safety? If you get caught drunk driving these days, your license gets suspended. So you think noone should lose their license until they kill someone behind the wheel?

It was Ben Franklin who made the quote you mentioned, and being a founding father doesn't make that quote correct. There are limits to freedom. We aren't free to murder, so why make it easy? I'm not suggesting banning guns, but everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE should fully endorse taking guns from irresponsible people. "Cocky wannabe ganster" types gets their hands on a gun, and everyone loses.

Why are people saying he never stole the Playstation 2? He could of easily took it with him and dumped it before returning.

Anyway if this was in the UK he would of probably got 14 years and then be out on 8 for good behavior.