Already, another Trayvon Martin incident has just happened

[BainsBane]

Merritt Landry shot a 14-year-old boy who was standing near his car. He shot the young teen in the head. Merritt Landry has been booked with attempted second degree murder.

This comes less than two weeks after the Trayvon Martin verdict.

“A Marigny homeowner has been booked with attempted second-degree murder after he shot a 14-year-old boy in the head early Friday, police said. The homeowner’s friends and neighbors said the owner believed the teen was an intruder. The teenager remains hospitalized in critical condition, police said.

New Orleans police arrested Merritt Landry, 33, a building inspector for the Historic District Landmarks Commission, after conducting multiple interviews and reviewing crime scene evidence, including a single spent casing at the scene, NOPD spokeswoman Remi Braden said.

Police said the teen was near Landry’s vehicle when he was shot. Landry’s friends said the vehicle was in the driveway behind a gate just a few feet from the house’s backdoor.

Landry’s attorneys, Michael Kennedy and Miles Swanson, issued a statement after the arrest saying, “This incident is terrible, and Mr. Landry feels terrible about how things have occurred. Nevertheless, we remain convinced our client has done nothing wrong, and we are sure — as facts come to light — it’ll become clear that Mr. Landry will be fully exonerated of any wrongdoing.”"

http://resistviolence.com/connect/archives/87


Original Source: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_booked_after.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Horrible story!

[defacto7]

2. And this is what we were worried about all along.

If one guy can do it, anyone can... and the lawyers will hop right on the wagon. It's become, "Shoot anything that moves!". I think it is worse now than in the old wild west.

[BainsBane]

3. Exactly. I suspect there have been other cases

Perhaps not of teenagers, but of gun nuts killing unarmed black men.

[starroute]

51. There's this one

http://www.kwch.com/kwch-jab-one-killed-one-hurt-in-pratt-shooting-20130725,0,1589065.story

Witness: Racial slurs led to deadly Pratt shooting

July 25, 2013
(PRATT, Kan.)—

Wright says he and the two victims were walking in front of a house, where a man was yelling racial slurs. He says the man demanded that they get off his property, but he says they were on the sidewalk. That's when a fight started between his brother and the man.

"They started to scuffle. And then the guy got loose and went inside. When he came back out he had a gun in his hand. I said, 'Run, Brandon, there's a gun. Run.'"

He says Brandon turned to protect the pregnant woman.

"He protected her. Yeah, he didn't want her to get shot. He didn't have a chance to run. And he ended up getting shot four times in the back. And then she got shot in the head, and so she's dead," he said.

[BainsBane]

69. That looks like a hate crime

The article doesn't mention charges. Do you know if he has been arrested? That has got to be First Degree murder.

[starroute]

179. Here's all I can find - it seems the victim was Hispanic

http://www.pratttribune.com/article/20130726/OBITUARIES/130729495

Alexandria "Alex" J. Duran, 22, died Thursday, July 25, 2013, at Pratt Regional Medical Center in Pratt. She was born Aug. 31, 1990, in Pratt, the daughter of Miguel and Julia (Martinez) Rios. A lifetime resident of Pratt, she was a homemaker.

She is survived by her mother, Julia Rios and fiancé, Steven Smith, Pratt; her father, Miguel (Norma) Rios, Zacatecaz, Mexico; three sons, Demitri Garrett, Deontei Garrett, and D'Adrian Garrett Jr., all of the home; three brothers, Martin (Beth) Duran, Jesus Duran, and Luis Gutierrez, all of Pratt; a sister Angelica Rios, Pratt, and several nieces, nephews and cousins.


http://www.pratttribune.com/article/20130726/NEWS/130729441/1001/NEWS

Jul. 26, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

Charges against Bryant Seba will be filed through the Kansas Attorney General's office concerning a shooting incident late Wednesday night in Pratt. . . .

Seba, 21, was booked into the Pratt County Jail at 11:12 p.m. Wednesday on suspicion of second-degree murder and aggravated battery. Bond has not been set, according to the Pratt County Sheriff's Office website.

[BainsBane]

377. Thanks for the info

We'll have to keep an eye on that case.

[heaven05]

534. +10000

[RedCappedBandit]

4. "we remain convinced our client has done nothing wrong"

OH OK.

[BainsBane]

5. Hey, he stood his ground

The kid might have scratched his car.

[krispos42]

158. SYG does not apply

Assuming Louisiana has SYG.

The shooter and the victim were both on the shooter's private property.

[BainsBane]

364. It didn't apply to Marissa Alexander either

while she was on her own private property. That's why she is doing 20 years for jail for shooting the gun over the head of her abusive ex. She should have known that SYG exists for the purpose of killing African Americans, not for them to invoke in their own self defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

404. Marissa Alexander was the agressor.

She left the house, went to her car, got her gun, returned and fired in the direction her husband and her two children. I guess firing in the direction of her kids is OK in your book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3328433

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-marissa-alexander-20130717,0,4248003.story
Instead, she got her gun from the garage and fired a shot in the direction of Rico Gray, her husband, and his two boys, 9 and 13. The 911 call Gray placed after the shooting indicated he was fleeing and scared for his life. Alexander also reportedly sought out Gray at his “safe house” a few months after the shooting and instigated a fight that left him with a bloodied eye.

With three victims testifying against her, Alexander was convicted of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Florida’s “10-20-Life” minimum sentencing law, which requires anyone who fires a gun during an aggravated assault to serve 20 years.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/marissa-alexander-prosecutor_n_1504428.html
She said the facts don’t support Alexander’s self-defense claim. Just before Alexander went into the garage and retrieved her pistol, she told Gray, “I got something for your ass,” Corey said.

While Alexander’s family and her attorney have claimed Alexander fired a warning shot into the ceiling, Corey said a bullet hole in the wall shows the gun was aimed much lower. The shot Alexander fired appears to have struck to the right of an archway between the kitchen and living room, where Gray and his two young sons were.

Leaving, getting a gun, then returning voids a claim of self-defense. Here husband was indeed an abusive asshole, but here shot didn't meet the criteria for self-defense. You can't leave, get a gun, come back shooting and claim self-defense.

[BainsBane]

418. sigh

I guess we need to add abused women to the category of people who have no right to defend their own lives.

[GreenStormCloud]

468. She charged into the house with the gun. That isn't defense. Check out the links. N/T

[BainsBane]

470. You are going based on the testimony of a man who beats women

who changed his testimony at the time of trial. Don't for a second think everyone doesn't know that if this were a white male instead of a black woman you would think the killing is justified. In the thread on the Juarez serial killings, you made perfectly clear your views on women's lives. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021983



BTW, it was her fucking house, not his. She didn't invade a house. She came from an attached garage. You know for a fact if anyone came into your house you wouldn't shoot over their head, you'd kill them on the spot. You'd defend him if a man were protecting property. You defended this guy who tried to kill a boy in his yard. Yet a black woman doesn't have the right to self defense from an abusive husband who had beat her many times. Your position on that, I think, is explained quite clearly in your responses in the Juarez thread.

[GreenStormCloud]

473. She also shot in the direction of her own kids.

That is according to the testimony of her kids. So shooting in the direction of her own kids is OK in your book?

I did NOT defend the guy who killed the 14 year old in his yard. You are flat out lying. I have said that he should get Murder 2, unless more information comes out. I have clearly posted that if someone is outside your residence then they are no threat to you - normally.

[BainsBane]

481. They were not her kids

That guy has kids from four women, and he said he beats all except one of them. She shot over their heads. You claim to know what happened. How can that be? Were you there? Amazing how Zimmy is your hero yet you can't wait to condemn a woman defending herself within her own house.

[GreenStormCloud]

483. So shooting in the direction of kids is OK with you?

The guy is definately a scumbag, but is spousal abuse a death penalty? Have you even read the links I posted? Did you listen to the DA?

She wasn't defending herself. She left, got a gun from her car, returned and shot. That isn't self-defense as her life was not in danger.

[noiretextatique]

554. killing kids is ok with you

shooting in the direction of kids, and not harming them to keep a violent predator from killing you is fine with me.

[BainsBane]

482. You said Trayvon was a threat to Zimmerman

and he was no where near Zimmerman's residence.

[cecilfirefox]

498. Green, I concur with your sensibilities. As a law student, as someone who has studied the law

and even done a bit of criminal defense work at the firm I clerk at, it's pretty clear that this woman is not a clear and cut dry case of the justice system 'getting it wrong'. Whatever the man did, whatever the motivation, she left the house, got a gun, came back, and fired it at him- I can really understand, and support a jury's right, to convict her.

If anything, this scenario shows us the problem caused by mandatory sentences that are archaic, not good for rehabilitating persons, and crowd up our prison systems. It's not a good way of dealing justice.

[GreenStormCloud]

510. Thanks. N/T

[HiPointDem]

519. wasn't it her own residence?

[noiretextatique]

553. bull...she tried to escape and could not

then she found the gun and went back inside.

[GreenStormCloud]

555. When she was out of the house, she had escaped.

She said, "I've got something for your ass.", left the house to her car, got her gun from the car, went back into the house, and fired in the direction of him and the kids.

[noiretextatique]

556. she could not get out of the house

get your facts straight.

[GreenStormCloud]

560. My facts are straight.

She left the house to the car.

Here are the links: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-marissa-alexander-20130717,0,4248003.story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3324269

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/marissa-alexander-prosecutor_n_1504428.html

[krispos42]

424. I'm not on board with that case, either.

But, she could be a victim of your side's desire to severely punish anybody that mishandles or misuses a gun.

From the law's point of view, she recklessly discharged a firearm inside city limits. Inside a house. Now, I'm sure you know that bullets can penetrate walls and hit innocent victims, so obviously people that discharge guns in crowded urban or suburban areas need to be severely punished, right?

Also from the law's point of view, if she was really in life-threatening danger, she wouldn't have fired a warning shot, right? If she was in life-threatening danger, she should have shot him instead.

So, from the law's point of view, she wasn't in danger enough yet. After all, we only want justifiable homicide when there's really a reasonable believe of imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, right? We don't want people to shoot people just because "they feel threatened", right?

[NOLALady]

381. IF the victim was on his property.

I called NOPD once when someone was in our yard.
They came out and told my husband (who was a hunter) to make sure the intruder was on our property (wink wink) if they returned and my husband had to shoot them.

[Xithras]

507. Correct. This wouldn't be a Stand Your Ground case. But LA is also a Castle Doctrine state.

People tend to forget that Castle Doctrine states tend to offer even MORE protections for shooters in their homes than SYG states offer shooters ANYWHERE.

Louisiana's Castle Doctrine states that homeowners have the right to actively prevent felonies from occurring on their property, and authorizes homeowners to shoot criminals if they believe that there would be "a serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing".

In other words, Louisiana's law can be summed up as: "If a felony is happening on your property, and you think that the guy committing it might kick your ass if you try and stop him, you can just kill him. Your life doesn't need to actually be in danger, you just need to have a reasonable fear of being hurt if you physically intervene to stop the crime."

Under the terms of the Louisiana law, the only real question here is whether the dead boy was committing any crimes that rose to the level of a felony. Someone stealing your car stereo isn't a felony.

[progressoid]

30. Almost word for word what Zimmerman's lawyers said.

[Mariana]

149. Except Zimmerman didn't feel terrible

about the way things occurred. Zimmerman said it was God's plan for him to kill Trayvon.

At least the police did their jobs here, unlike the Sanford police. They made some effort to try to determine what really happened. They examined the scene for physical evidence and they interviewed witnesses.

[pintobean]

151. Sanford police examined the scene for physical evidence

and interviewed witnesses. It looks like this case might have better evidence and witnesses.

[Tx4obama]

6. Wonder why he jumped the fence into the yard. Article doesn't explain that part...

[TheDebbieDee]

11. The shooter was in a "Shoot first and ask questions later" frame of mind....

[BainsBane]

20. That is the problem with the NRA-Alec version of self defense

Any shit bag who automatically thinks a black kid is a criminal shoots him. We can only hope this one doesn't get away with it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. well that's all the info I need

Guilty. Racist.

[rightsideout]

8. Wait a minute

This isn't like the Trayvon Martin Case.

Trayvon was walking through a community on public property, community property or whatever. He was stalked and followed. He wasn't in someone's yard sneaking around.

All the details aren't clear yet but this kid went into someone's gated yard at night. True, the guy didn't have to go to the extreme of shooting the kid but if people are sneaking around on your property you shouldn't be compared to Zimmerman, although I will admit the guy sounds like the same type of Zimmerman personality reacting like he did.

Now, if this guy was out walking on the street with his gun and shot at these kids because he thought they were up to something then that would be another Zimmerman.

Everyone needs to respect other's property. Kids shouldn't be so stupid to go into people's yards at night. Not with all the gun toting paranoid loons holed up inside their compounds.

I'm angry at the Zimmerman verdict. But kids need to realize what the boundaries are and going into someone's gated yard at night just isn't smart.

It's all common sense. We'll have to see what the details are.

[BainsBane]

10. So this is the get off my lawn, but with guns?

[rightsideout]

12. Did you read what I said?

"True, the guy didn't have to go to the extreme of shooting the kid . . ."

I said he didn't have to go to the extreme of using the gun.

[BainsBane]

13. I read it

I would venture you cut through people's yards as a kid. I know I did, but somehow I lived to tell the story.

[rightsideout]

41. Actually, kids cut through my yard all the time

As a matter of fact, last week, a kid who looks like Trayvon came to my house after cutting through my yard and asked to borrow some wrenches to fix his motorcycle. I know him though and the other kids that cut through my yard.

I even got yelled at by my own neighbor who thought I was a kid crossing my lawn. That's the paranoid Conservatives who live next to me. She couldn't see me through her fence and thought I was some kid cutting through my yard. They yell at the kids crossing through my yard but I tell them the kids are allowed to.

But kids need to be smarter and use more common sense especially at night in someones yard.

[Agschmid]

181. So when you say he looked like Trayvon...

What exactly do you mean by that?

Your sub thread is a bit off... IMO.

[JDPriestly]

42. Not if there was a fence or gate. We need more facts about this.

[HiPointDem]

45. which there was. a chest-high iron fence with spikes.

[Pelican]

55. There is a difference between...

... kids (actual kids and not teenagers) cutting a corner to get to school in daylight and a teenager and his friends entering property at 1:45 am in the dark.

Reasonableness... One might be.. The other certainly is not...

[BainsBane]

386. What about the reasonableness of killing an unarmed teenager on sight

What say you to that?

[beevul]

405. Who did that?

Who killed "an unarmed teenager on sight"?

[Pelican]

425. I wouldn't have shot him on sight...

I will be interested to see how he justifies that threat.

[AtheistCrusader]

437. Have you forgotten, again, that he is not dead?

[joeglow3]

290. I cut through yards of people I knew

Even then, I did not jump chest high steel fences when cutting through a yard and I never happened to walk up to the driver side door of the persons car with them in it.

[tofuandbeer]

50. I respect your voice of reason and it is needed here....

I just can't understand why these people with guns always shoot to kill.
What's wrong with a shot to the leg....they seem to go for the kill (head or heart).
Good god I hate guns.

[BainsBane]

77. because they want to kill

They look for opportunities to kill. That is what killers do.

[tofuandbeer]

103. True. Sadly, I didn't think of that.

[BainsBane]

105. I didn't realize how much some want to kill

and think about killing before I began talking with hard core gunners. They have given me quite the eye-opening education.

[Bay Boy]

240. I wonder if those who do kill

regret it later. I hope all of them do.

[BainsBane]

382. It appears Zimmerman does not

I suppose some do. Some don't'

[Agschmid]

183. Yup.

It is disgusting.

[NutmegYankee]

261. You realize that is not true, right?

I take it you have never fired a handgun, and therefore have little understanding of how hard it is to aim and hit a small target like a leg, especially under pressure. All instructors, including of law enforcement officers, teach to aim for center mass because that's the best assurance that you will hit the target and stop the threat/attack. It's not because they want to kill. In fact, if that was the goal, they'd go for head shots.

We often see police make incredible shots in a rush in the movies and TV shows, but that is and always will be fiction.

[BainsBane]

358. No, but I've talked to enough gun proponents

to know that some very much want to kill. You are not representative of those folks. And no, I am not talking about typical gun owners. Obviously the shooter here wanted to kill. If he didn't, he would have called the police or simply asked the child what he was up to.

[NutmegYankee]

368. I agree it appears the intent in this case was to kill.

A single shot with a head wound is rarely the result of a rushed defense of self. I just wanted to try to dispel the myth that aiming for center mass is to kill, whereas it's just to ensure that they hit anything at all to stop an attack.

[NickB79]

137. Because a shot to wound will get you put in prison

You are only supposed to use a gun in self-defense if you fear for your life.

If you have time to aim at a leg and shoot to intentionally wound, you clearly weren't in imminent fear for your life. You wasted precious seconds lining up the hard shot vs. shooting at the bigger, easier target of the chest/abdomen. No one in mortal terror would do that, which proves you didn't NEED to shoot, but rather CHOSE to shoot.

The same goes with firing warning shots; that'll also get you thrown in prison.

So, in legitimate cases of self-defense, people get shot in the chest. In bullshit cases of self-defense (like the asshole in the OP), they still shoot in the chest because they know couldn't get away with anything less.

[treestar]

268. Nonsense

shooting them in the leg will stop what they are doing to threaten your life. If they still keep coming at you, sure (like that video of a guy who got out of his car and starting shooting at cops, and kept shooting after he was hit).

[NickB79]

427. Shooting a person in the leg is HARD

If you're actually afraid for your life, you generally don't have the time and accuracy to line up that shot. A human leg is what, 4-6" across, vs a foot or more for the average human chest? Hands shaking, target probably moving around, etc. A person can advance 20 ft in a second or two; you don't have TIME to make those kinds of decisions.

It's the same reason you don't generally don't hear of cops shooting guys in the legs. It's why you hear of cops emptying ENTIRE CLIPS at close range and still missing the bad guys. It's a Hollywood stunt that has little basis in reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

440. The only nonsense is your response.

Intentionally using lethal force for intentionally non-lethal purposes is a ticket to jail. That's why the woman that fired the warning shot in Florida is starting a 20 year jail sentence. A willingness to put that bullet in a non-lethal place on purpose is prima facie evidence you are not justified in using lethal force in self defense at all.

That said, more problems:

1. Your legs contain a major artery, and store almost 1/3 of your blood supply. A hit in the legs can be lethal in as little as 1 minute.
2. Legs are incredibly hard targets. As narrow as the head (more so down low) and most likely moving around a lot more than the head. This is why all self-defense instructors teach to shoot center of mass.

[treestar]

456. Then you'd better make a good decision about how you are in fear of your life

A lot of people could die.

[spin]

492. Obviously you have never heard of the femoral artery.

Puncture that artery with a bullet and the is an excellent chance that the victim will bleed out in a matter of minutes.

[ceonupe]

154. Because every firearms instructor will tell you

U shoot center mass

You shoot to stop the threat not to slow it down.

If you pull your gun to shot u should shoot to stop the threat. I have attended more than a dozen firearms saftey and firearms combat/gunfighter courses. I can't think of a single one that has advised otherwise.

The police also shoot center mast or head shots.


Have you ever looked at a shooting target? Notice the most points are for center mass and head shot. That is because that is where u train to shoot.

[Hoyt]

281. You only have to follow their advice, if that's what you want to do. I wouldn't trust a firearms

"instructor" -- who profits off guns and may well have been certified by the right wing NRA -- for anything. But, for those into guns, it a convenient excuse -- I was taught to shoot to kill.

[ceonupe]

300. almost all firearms instructors are nra certified

the people that train police are the military yep them to.

basic ly almost every firearms instructor I have ever met is NRA certified even the ones that don't agree with much of the nra's political stance.

There is no comparable group in the usa that certifies firearms instructors. Until about 20-25 years ago the NRA was almost completely non political.


ANd chose any country you want I bet you they are trained to shoot center mass

the whole leg shot to disable is only for the movies. its rarely done on purpose.

I am a firearms instructor and while I don't teach classes I am registered with the state and can teach the Concealed carry class. You know were you go to become a certified instructor yep you guessed it NRA school. I will say however there was zero politics at the training and testing just pure law and skill.

And even if you don't I challenge you to find any gun or shooting expert that suggests otherwise. For one you should not pull your gun unless you are prepared to take a life and that its justified and necessary. once u pull that trigger ther is no undo button and its highly likely what is hit will die.

[ceonupe]

314. if you understand how NRA bard elections go you would know generalmemership has little sway

and No I did not vote for Ted (he's a fucking nut-case and not a good example) Bolton (personally had problems with his FP views even though that has nothing to do with the NRA I held that against him and did not vote for him, and Grover norquist I don't remember on the ballot but I know I did not vote for him as again I have issues with his stances on things outside of guns and yes I held that against him)

but if you understand how voting works. After this current group took control thru the voting process they changed it so its very hard to have such a large change again.

the real activity for me is in the shooting sports and in the safety (training, gun range designs and safety ect) and these boards are really more representative of larger membership.

but yeah in the USA I would say greater than 98% of all firearms instructors are NRA certified there really is no other organization that des what they do as far as firearms /range safety.

[Hoyt]

319. Courses taught by those certified by organization answering to gun manufacturers are a little too

biased for me. Hopefully that will change. Wayne LaPierre types are not the best instructors for truly responsible gun owners.

I get there are a lot of students who just want to hear how to shoot someone, how SYG laws work, what to say to police when you shoot unarmed kid in chest or head, etc. But those are just the kind of people that need a different kind of training.

[ceonupe]

323. i dont think you get me

the instructors are by and large not the Wayne LaPierre types at all.

Most are safety nuts to the extreme and run a tight ship. Most are range officers/masters on their spare weekends.

And in the classes I took it was not about what to say but about when you can and can not use deadly force and what your responsibilities are.

I now you are anti gun but I think you should take a course at a reputable store or club. I would be willing to help sponsor it even if you don't get your CCW/CHL/CHP. One thing that may surprise you is the diversity of the class gender/race and age. Maybe my view is slanted and because I live in a very diverse military town its different but in Fayetteville, NC your average class will have atleast 40% women. at least 25% non white and atleast 20% over the age of 60

But yeah there are some nuts out there but they don't speak for the whole community. and the actual safety and training work the NRA does is first class. the political side that's another story. and yes there are 2 different groups the old NRA is stll alive and well in the sports and training safety side

[NutmegYankee]

257. Intentionally shooting someone in the leg is Felony malicious wounding.

Handguns are actually rather difficult to aim that accurately under pressure. If a person scores a leg hit on purpose, it is considered by law that they really weren't in danger of life or limb. They had plenty of time to aim.

If someone is really trying to kill you, you are taught to go for the largest target, I.E., center mass. That not because you want to ensure a kill, but because you want to ensure a hit to stop the attack.

[eilen]

374. It is not harder to hit someone in the leg vs the head

this is a ridiculous argument.

[NutmegYankee]

376. What?

Both are hard. The present case was likely an intentional murder, with plenty of time to aim, hence a head shot. In real self defense, there is far less time to aim, hence the center mass shots.

[GreenStormCloud]

409. The head is not center-mass. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

441. They are both difficult targets, but the legs move around more.

That said, who the hell advocated shooting in the head. Instructors for all self defense courses teach shooting center-mass. That's about your sternum.

Biggest target on the body, AND has the convenient bonus of lining up the center of the nervous system. So, if you yank the trigger and 'miss high' you still might hit the spine or brain.

[treestar]

266. [phone]

I have heard that they are trained they should shoot to kill, but don't get why that's necessary. If you pull out the gun, you should shoot it, is another one of their rules. A lot of people, no matter what they are doing, could be scared off having it pointed at them. So if you are far enough away, they should get that chance before firing.

[mythology]

356. Perhaps because shooting to wound is a fantasy?

The idea that somebody can be shot in the leg and they won't die is rather silly. The femoral artery will have you bleeding out in minutes. A few years ago there was a football player who died when somebody shot him in the leg.

I personally don't own guns, but the people I know who do, hold that if you point a gun at somebody, you had better be prepared to kill them, because that's the threat you're representing and it's the reality of the potential consequences.

[tofuandbeer]

559. Thanks. Didn't know that.

[GreenStormCloud]

406. Deliberate shots to wound are illegal. Such a shot is evidence against you.

You can only shoot in self-defense when you are in "the gravest extreme'. A deliberate shot to wound is an attempt at severe persuasion. People can stay in the fight with lesser injuries. So you are shooting while you still have time to evaluate the effect of your shot and fire another shot if the wounding shot fails to stop the person. Since you fired when you had time to evaluate, then you were not yet in the gravest extreme. You were not yet out of options.

Further, that so-called shot to wound can be fatal. A bullet in the leg can sever the femoral artery, in the arm the radial artery, and the person can bleed out in minutes. ANY use of a gun against a person is a use of deadly force.

If you were aiming for center-mass and miss and hit somewhere else, then that is just a miss. The difference is in the intent. One always shoots to STOP THE THREAT, NEVER TO KILL. If they do die as a result of being stopped, then that is their bad luck.

If you are not in the absolute gravest extreme, KEEP YOU HANDS OFF THE GUN. If you are not ready to see a person die by your hand, KEEP YOUR HAND OFF THE GUN.

[spin]

557. This article may help to answer your question. ...

What you don't know CAN kill you ...Myths About Self-Defense
By Kathy Jackson
http://www.corneredcat.com/article/legal-concerns/myths-about-selfdefense/

I would post excerpts but this article covers your question in depth. Unfortunately it will do little to change your opinion about firearms.

[Politicalboi]

85. Maybe the kid had the wrong house

And wasn't "sneaking" around. What if this kid was a pizza guy, and had the wrong address? I know he wasn't a pizza guy because he's 14, but he looks big for his age. Was the gate locked? I'm not arguing with you, but what if it was the wrong address? Respecting people's property rights over someone's right to live if they made a mistake is a terrible way to live.

What if the kid was trying to ditch a Zimmerman who was stalking him, and thought he had a safe place to hide? Shooting first, and asking question later should be against the law in these cases. Now, someone in your house, Go For It!

[HiPointDem]

136. it was 2 am. pizza guys usually phone the home when they're lost, they don't jump the gate.

since his friend stayed in the street with their bikes, your scenario about the kid taking shelter from some threat doesn't seem very likely either.




comparing this to the martin case actually does martin a disservice. he hadn't jumped a fence to enter someone's yard at 2 am, he was on a public walkway just after dinnertime walking back from the store less than a mile away to a family friend's house.

[peace13]

488. ...at 7:30 PM! n/t

[cyberswede]

315. Do you live in an urban area?

In our small town, it wouldn't bother me - teens are often out walking around. That said, I wouldn't let my kid be out alone that late, as a matter of principle.

[99Forever]

147. Call me crazy...

... but I'm not okay with the death penalty for simple trespassing.

But that's just me.

[HardTimes99]

180. Are you crazy? Don't you know that in America private property rights

trump every other conceivable right that exists on the planet?

(in case it's needed)

[DrDan]

287. and, unfortunately, the bound of "private property" is being extended and extended

to include, for example, private autos

hence guns on school property, at work, in national parks . . . etc

it is simply insane - the paranoia on the part of gun owners overwhelms their every activity

what a way to live

[ctsnowman]

246. Exactly!

[TransitJohn]

170. Fuck property.

And the use of deadly force most assuredly should never be warranted in the defense of property. It's only ever justified in the defense of life, if it is in imminent danger.

[okieinpain]

562. so its open house at your home. n/t.

[treestar]

263. That's a sane analysis

Though he did not have to shoot the kid, I agree with that part, too.

[chillfactor]

9. if the gun-nut shooter HAD to fire and that is debatable...

why did he shoot to kill? good god?

[ohheckyeah]

14. What not use bird shot in the gun?

I had stuff stolen off my porch on Monday night - brand new seat cushion and a couple of pillows. We put bird shot in the shotgun - never intending to shoot at all, but the sound of a shot gun being racked is unmistakable. We set up a little driveway alarm system on the front porch and sure enough at 11:30 pm the alarm went off. My husband grabbed the shotgun and turned on the spotlight and we caught the culprit...................



the neighbor's dog. Apparently the little bandit has made stealing stuff from people's yards and porches a career. The owner's didn't have the courtesy to try and find out who the stuff belonged to and have a mud room full of stuff. We only found this out when we confronted the owners who returned the seat cushion and one pillow, never offering to pay for the one still missing.

Having said all of that, there is no reason to go for the kill over property. Stuff is stuff and taking a human life over stuff (or even a canine life) is not worth it.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

35. I watched a video of a cat who stole from the neighborhood. nt

[ohheckyeah]

46. I don't know what the answer is to this problem.

My other neighbor is really pissed - he's had all kinds of stuff, including solar lights, taken from his yard. He had called the police numerous times thinking it was teenagers and still wouldn't know what happened to his stuff if my husband and I hadn't put 2 and 2 together and confronted the dog's owners. The dog is a sweet and beautiful dog who is bored and ignored by the owners. They admitted that the dog was dumped on them by their grown daughter and they obviously don't want him and can't be bothered to train him or spend any time with him. I don't want the dog punished, I want the owner's to take some damn responsibility. There is no leash law where we live as it is rural and the dog is in the road all the time.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

53. Maybe find a new home for the dog?

We have a new puppy and he brings things home. The neighbors babies teething ring and bottle. But I know who they belong to... (He has also chewed the car liner, seat belts, water bottles in the car, milk bottles in the car, half a pizza. I would rather he just outgrow these things, than buy a crate to confine him in. He has eaten two pairs of glasses my partner left on the dash while shopping. He only has one pair left, and he now puts them in the glove box when going into a store. )

[Boudica the Lyoness]

322. We have a new pup

I find that raw hide chews really help them with their need to chew. I have all kinds of shapes and sizes to keep her amused.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

337. He want to play 'tug o war' with things, so I bought a hemp rope, but he doesn't play with it.

Maybe I need to dip it in bacon grease or something. We have chewy toys, some he has chewed up, into little pieces... But thanks for the advise, I my try that next.

[ohheckyeah]

330. I wish the people would find him a new home.

He just needs some training and attention but they certainly aren't open to any suggestion from us. They made it plain they moved to the country so as not to be bothered by anyone.

[TorchTheWitch]

76. Maybe someone else would want the dog?

Poor pooch needs a new family to love and pay attention to him. If these people don't want the dog maybe someone else would be happy to take it off their hands.

[ohheckyeah]

331. It's not really something I can suggest to them.

They made it clear they just don't want to be bothered with people - they said that was why they moved to the country. I hope they find him a better home. Maybe they will get annoyed enough to do so if my other neighbor goes over to their house and asks for his stuff back.

[TorchTheWitch]

73. I saw that too - hilarious

Someone had posted it here. I seem to remember the naughty kitty snitched someone's bra off a clothesline or something like that in the video. Gonna see if I can find that video again. It was a riot!

[NickB79]

138. Birdshot is deadly at close range

As a kid, I had to kill various vermin around the farm with rifles and shotguns. I can testify that, at 20 yards, a 12-gauge blast of #8 shot (a very small pellet size) will kill a skunk instantly.

At a range of 20 feet, a blast of birdshot would have been as devastating as a shotgun slug. Hell, the pellets would still probably be inside the plastic shotcup, making it one ball of lead and steel.

[ceonupe]

155. Most on DU know zero about guns

You are right and I close range bird shot is deadly.

Heck there is another thread today about the police killing an old man that had allied with beanbag gun

[ohheckyeah]

328. I know they are at close range. n/t

[pipi_k]

165. Some guns

at my house, too...one of them a shotgun, kept in close proximity to the front door, but not close enough for an intruder to grab...

anyway, it's always loaded with a blank cartridge...mostly to fire off at black bears that might happen to wander into the yard. They've been known to break into houses around here (and other areas too, I imagine), so keeping them afraid of humans and their noises will actually save their lives.

If a human intruder gets close enough to the house past the security lights and alarms and dogs barking, he'd be faced with a shotgun loaded with a blank but he wouldn't know that...

[ohheckyeah]

329. Good idea!

When it comes to stuff, I don't want to shoot or kill anyone.

[pipi_k]

344. Me neither...

or be killed for it, either.

Like, I can never understand why people working in convenience stores, probably making close to minimum wage willingly risk their lives during a robbery to protect whatever property or cash a thief wants to take.

Even if it's their own store, but still...if I'm working in a store and someone comes in wanting what's in the cash register, I'm not going to fight the guy.

Go ahead...take it...take all of it...I don't want to be shot or stabbed for someone else's stuff.

[ohheckyeah]

347. I've worked in stores and no way would I try to protect the store

from a robbery. We were told to just hand over the cash or whatever else the person wanted.

[GreenStormCloud]

410. Bluffing with a gun is a good way to get killed.

Think it ALL the way through. What is the intruder going to think? He will think that you are trying to kill him and missed. He will likely run away, but he may decide to return fire at you.

If the situation is not bad enough to actually shoot someone over, then KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF THE GUN.

[spin]

496. That might not work out well if he is armed with a gun of his own. ...

His gun will probably be loaded with real bullets.

[Travis_0004]

452. I would never use bird shot

Bird shot is designed for Birds. Its certainly less likely to kill somebody, but also less likely to stop a threat. Lets say somebody breaks into your house and has a gun. Birdshot is not going to stop the threat, and you will probably end up dead.

Now, lets say you have your shotgun loaded with buckshot, you walk outside, and see a 14 year old stealing couch cushions because they think its fun. Since they are not a threat to you in this case, then there is no need to shoot them, because they are not a threat.

In short, if they are a threat to you, I want buckshot, to stop the threat as soon as possible. If they are not a threat, I don't shoot.

[ohheckyeah]

457. I don't think you really read what I wrote.

We had no intention of shooting someone over pillows. The shotgun was for racking and frightening....the birdshot was because you always assume something can go wrong and we didn't want to shoot or kill anyone or anything.

As for indoors, I have a 357 magnum and the ammo in the shotgun was changed back to buckshot.

[Travis_0004]

458. If you just want to rack it and freighten somebody, why load it at all.

Wouldn't it be a lot safer to rack an empty shotgun. That would be a lot safer than birdshot.

[ohheckyeah]

459. Because we didn't know what was on the porch until we got to the porch...

it could have been a maniac with a knife or a gun or any number of wild animals.

[Travis_0004]

462. Thats my point.

If it was a maniac with a knife, would buck shot be a lot more effective.

[spin]

499. A shotgun loaded with buckshot is the most lethal firearm at close range. (n/t)

[Pelican]

15. For those who don't want to follow the links...

Landry and some others were cruising up and down the street during the day...

From the article

Hazouri said his video, which he gave to NOPD detectives, shows the two teens talking in the middle of Mandeville Street outside of Landry's house. The video then shows the teen in the light-colored T-shirt walk his bike across Mandeville toward Landry's house. Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.

Landry's large dog started barking, which alerted Landry to the teen being inside his yard, according to Landry's friends.

Landry, who has a pregnant wife and baby daughter, believed the teen was trying to break into his house, Hazouri said.

Why was he on his property with his other friend acting like a lookout?

[BainsBane]

16. Look out?

Yeah, cause all black kids are going to break into someone's house. He should go ahead and shoot them in the head. They couldn't have been cutting through a yard like you and I did when we were kids?

The article said nothing about being a lookout. That is all you.

[Pelican]

19. When certain words come together they can form a description...

In this case...

Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.

One possible interpretation is that the other teen was acting as a lookout as the other entered Landry's property.

Not saying that is what it was for sure. It is just a possibility and a reason I'm sure that will be brought up in court to justify the threat.

[BainsBane]

22. That assumes black males are inherently dangerous

whereas I see this as kids getting into a yard, like kids do. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they lose their childhood.

When I posted about my garden soil being stolen and that if I'd had a gun I could have killed those folks, the gunners jumped into tell me what an absurd notion that was, it was illegal, and gun owners don't do that. Here nothing was taken, yet you are implying someone had a right to shoot a boy in the head when nothing was taken but that his friend "acted like a lookout."

What makes someone like the shooter automatically assume criminality? Is it because they themselves have spent a lot of time stealing and assume others will? Is it racist paranoia, or some other psychological issue? Or perhaps it's nothing more than a homicidal desire to kill. Whatever it is, people like are dangerous and have no business going near a gun. They are highly dangerous people.

[hrmjustin]

24. Well said!

[Pelican]

27. You are the only one who used the word black...

A ginger eskimo who enters someones property illegally while their ginger eskimo friend waits and looks on ther other side of the street is doing the same thing and is subject to the same scrutiny...

That specific statement had nothing to do with race until you put it in there.

[BainsBane]

78. The boys are black

Your denying that doesn't change that fact. You are the one who assumed one was the boy was a "look out" when the article said nothing of the kind. You showed yourself.

[Pelican]

113. I said he acted like it...

... and it was a possibility.

So sensitive...

[BainsBane]

369. Actually what I am is observant. nt

[HiPointDem]

32. if it were a white teenager climbing my fence to get in my yard after dark (2 am) while his friend

stood outside, i wouldn't shoot him but i damn well wouldn't think they were having some innocent fun.

[tblue]

43. So you yell at them or call the police.

if you're really worried or frightened. But don't shoot. For crying out loud! DON'T SHOOT!

[HiPointDem]

49. i said i wouldn't shoot. and i would call the police, since our response times are good. but

i wouldn't for one minute think a 14 year old jumped at 2 am because he heard a kitten meow. that's ridiculous.

[ceonupe]

161. Regardless of race

At 1:45 am when 2 people go to a house and one stays out front while the other jumps the fence the assumption can be made they are not where they should be and are upto something they should not e doing.

If it was legit why not ring the mans door bell? If its too late why not come back the next day?

So but this won't make it to trial unless more information that has not been released is found.

[BainsBane]

387. Because race has absolutely nothing to do with

how black males are seen as criminal by many Americans, right? It's totally coincidence.

[pnwmom]

124. How does a possible burglary that hasn't happened justify the death penalty? n/t

[Pelican]

130. Easiest way to avoid it is to not break into other people's property...

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Like the other guy said... "Play stupid games.. win stupid prizes"

[pnwmom]

413. And the easiest way to avoid a murder trial

is not to shoot at someone till he actually tries to break into your house.

[uponit7771]

491. So trespassing = death penalty!?!!? Yes DU, you've been overun by fudr no doubt

[Pelican]

497. I would say not equal to....

... but rather invites the possibility of.

99 times out of 100 he can probably get away with what he wanted or with minimal repercussions. It's that 1 out of a 100 though....

[uponit7771]

502. They guy was 30 feet away, the witness's say he was no threat and the shooter has been charged in th

...this case where he was in his own castle.

This is worse than Trayvon because there were witness's to say the kid was not a threat and there are people STILL defending the shooter.

DU has been overun with fudr... fudr no doubt

[Pelican]

505. Wasn't that one of the big three rallying cries against Zimmerman here on DU?

If he hadn't been doing something he shouldn't have, then none of it would have come to pass.

That's my point...

Since you desperately seem to want me to ask... What is fudr? Other than a cancer treatment...

[uponit7771]

506. Yes, people are usually against overt racist like Zimmerman so I think there were plenty of cries

...against Zimmerman and plenty of people defending the racist Zimmerman (there's no way someone calls the police on blacks who are doing nothing 30 - 60 times and not get called out for racial animus) here on DU.

In regards to "something he should'nt have"...again, the police arrested the shooter because he used deadly force when he shouldn't have.

The kid was not arrested for trespassing, there is video evidence of this incident unlike TM...the police have already made the statement that the kid was NO THREAT to the shooter or his family.



FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt...used in ad campaigns against products now usually politically on websites.

Usually trolls who proffer often strawman filled positions and suppositions vs outright trollish statements so they don't get kicked from a board as fast.

[GreenStormCloud]

412. It doesn't. Even if he was planning to break in, he wasn't a threat yet.

Under most circumstances, if they are still outside, call 911 and stay inside. If they break in, then they are a threat and may be shot.

[BainsBane]

390. You were quite clear earlier

That was the ONLY possible interpretation. You described it as a fact. Now you're back peddling.

[JVS]

21. Cutting across the yard to get to this bed and breakfast at 1:45 AM?

http://www.collinwoodhouse.com/

Look up the 700 block of Mandeville st. and find the red house shown in the news article. This isn't some suburban housing plan where crossing yards saves distance. The only thing on the other side of the courtyard is the bed and breakfast.

[BainsBane]

23. What does suburban have to do with it?

I never lived in the suburbs, thank God, except three months of hell while I was unemployed and I had to stay with my brother. You don't need to be in the suburbs to cut across a yard. The only difference between suburbs and cities, in this regard, is the race of the teenagers.

[JVS]

26. Winding roads in the typical suburban housing complex make for many shortcuts through yards.

Look at the block from the news article.
You posited that these kids may have been taking a shortcut through the yard. The layout of the yard doesn't support you.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Nor does leaving his bicycle behind in the street.

[BainsBane]

365. It may be the case that he wasn't taking a shortcart

but the layout as you describe it does not establish that point. Cities have alleys. People cut through yards to avoid walking all the way around the block. I did it my self hundreds of times growing up as child in a city, not the suburbs.

[HiPointDem]

445. there is no alley. the house is faced by houses on three sides. they butt up against each other.

and it was 2 am. and he left his bike and his friend on the street.

you are ridiculous. particularly since the kid was already waiting some kind of court procedure for theft and his family called him a 'professional thief'.

he was there to steal, that's established. that doesn't mean he should have been shot, but it does eliminate your claim that this case has any resemblance to the martin case.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Bull Crap.

Yeah, he's cutting through the guy's yard but left his bike behind in the street. Sure pal.

I don't know what his deal was, maybe nothing felonious at all, absolutely no appearance of doing anything that warrants deadly force in response, but there is zero apparent justification for him to be hopping that fence.

let's not injure ourselves stretching to paint a picture that doesn't make any damn sense at all. (And isn't required anyway, because deadly force is not reasonable in response to simple trespassing)

[busterbrown]

56. The same justification we used when we jumped fences as kids..

Mostly neighborhood fences, but we were jumping. Kids do that shit!!

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Trespassing is not terribly smart. 'Kids' do not all 'do that shit'. Just FYI. It's a great way to get arrested, or bitten by someone's fucking dog, etc.

The whole point of a fence is to restrict access. Either to keep people out to protect property, or to keep people out to protect them from some hazard, like a pool, or an open pit, or a dog.

Again, there is no indication this kid did anything to warrant deadly force, but please, teach your kids to stay off people's property when posted/fenced. It might just save their lives, wrongful use of force or not.

[Pelican]

62. Stealing that line...

Love it...

[busterbrown]

66. Perhaps you would have a more effective point if you discussed the dangers of alcohol and drugs

on kids... What do you think 1000 kids dying because of alcohol and drugs against maybe one dying because of jumping a fence.. At least a 1000 to 1 wouldn’t you agree?

These people who are shooting kids because they are trespassing are not shooting because they are trespassing, they are shooting because they are black kids. Christ, do you think he would have opened fire if they were white?

[Pelican]

68. Do you have proof to the contrary?

You might... I'm just asking...

[busterbrown]

72. Not going to discuss the obvious...

[Pelican]

75. Got it...

He shot the black person because he's racist...

How do you know?

He just is... It's obvious unless you are a racist too! *dramatic music*

[busterbrown]

79. No, because he is out of his fucking racist mind.

I wonder if you asked a thousand Black citizens wether or not this idiot shot the kid in order to to protect his home, I wondered what their responses would be?
Different than yours...You think?

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Entirely possible he simply values life less than his own property.

Hang on a bit till all the facts are in before we go assuming precise causes.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Not clear from the article in the OP.

[busterbrown]

89. I’ll doubt you’ll be hearing him at a press conference talking about his intolerance..

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Quite true.

Then again.. As my warrant officer buddy used to say; we don't catch 'em because they're smart...

Two days ago there was some complete savage that shot a kid, and his objection to arrest was; 'I only shot a N-----'. So... One never knows. Bigots have a way of outing themselves.

[hfojvt]

429. that incident was actually well over a year ago

and that guy apparently has still not yet gone to trial.

Things often get posted on DU like they are new stories, when they really are not. Like milk, it is a good idea to check the date on it.

[AtheistCrusader]

436. Good to know.

First time I had seen it. It's possible the date was clearly posted, and I missed it.

[hfojvt]

442. it was in the link

but the actual story made it sound current, unless you either see the date in the link or read the date on the story. The second post in the thread said "well what has the Zimmerman trial taught him?" so other people were seeing it as current as well.

And the first story made it sound like the victim would live, when in fact he died six weeks later.

But I should not expect you to take my word for it http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3322630

But I expect to see this trend. For example, in the year 1 BT (or 2011 being one year Before Trayvon) there were 193 black people killed by white people (and 448 white people killed by black people and 2,447 black people killed by other black people, but pay no attention to THOSE facts behind the curtain.) http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

193 is 3.7 per week and that was Before Trayvon remember. So now in the year 1 AT each one of the 3.7 murders of black people by white people will be waved around as ANOTHER ZIMMERMAN and each one of those 3.7 victims will be waved around as ANOTHER TRAYVON. As some sort of proof that the non-guilty verdict opened the flood gates of hell.

But why stop there, when such stories can also be dredged up from the past to show what a scourge gun-toting white people are to this country?

[Pelican]

115. What would their opinion have to do with it?

How about some proof related to the events that happened and not just asking 1000 people what their opinion is.

Are you under the impression that reality changes on polling or majority rules?

In the end it comes down to "He is cause I say he is"

[BainsBane]

384. You don't seem concerned about proof

when it comes to accusing the shooting victim of nefarious intent. Naturally you see an attempted murder as more worthy of consideration than someone who isn't homicidal.

[Pelican]

423. I'm weird because I like facts...

Give it a whirl...

When someone has been killed or even when there was an attempt, I think it is very important to get all facts from all sides without preconceived notions or expectations.

[BainsBane]

432. Facts, like facts that establish someone is a lookout?

No, you don't care about facts. You like justifying the use of guns. If the guy shot someone he's a okay with you.

[Pelican]

439. I said that the actions could be interpreted that way...

Waiting on the other side of the street, while your buddy crosses, leaves his bike and hops the tall pointy fence could be interpreted as acting as a lookout.

I think you need a break from the internet. Go outside for a while...

[pipi_k]

200. So....

if we ever see a black kid, or guy, lurking around our house in the middle of the night, we're not supposed to be suspicious because....he black?

We can be suspicious if he's orange...or blue...or white.

But if he's black, leave him alone, even if he's trying to pick the lock on our back door, or casing the joint, peeking into windows and shit.

And really...I don't believe for a minute that a black person whose fence got jumped in the middle of the night by a black kid is going to think, "Oh, that's OK...he's black, after all!"

People want so desperately to make nearly everything about race that it gets pretty sickening after a while.

This is not to say that racism doesn't exist in this country. It does.

But not everything is about race.

[pipi_k]

195. Maybe you should

"discuss the obvious".

So that it becomes "obvious" to others.

Because I'm telling ya...I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person...not a rocket scientist, but intelligent enough to get by in the world.

and I don't quite understand how someone could KNOW that a guy shot someone because he's black. That knowledge requires powers I'm sure most of us don't have...namely the ability to know what someone is thinking.

So I suspect the "obvious" here is merely the fervent hope that someone is acting to confirm people's beliefs that everyone but them are racists.

[busterbrown]

205. Because if he was white the odds are that he wouldn’t have been shot,,

When did I say “I know”...I have only talked about chances and odds!

[pipi_k]

223. You are speculating

Assuming.

If you want to do that, then that's fine.

But don't take speculation and turn it into "The guy is a racist!!!" bullshit.

[busterbrown]

244. Well then... No one ever proved Zimmerman was a Racist.

I guess you’ll agree with that statement.. Or is calling Zimmerman a Racist, “Bullshit” as well?

[pipi_k]

320. The statement "Zimmerman is a

racist!!!!" is also bullshit.


Especially if, as you state, nobody ever proved that he was/is.

I would concede that he may have been profiling Trayvon Martin, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly.

But if a bunch of crimes were being committed in that neighborhood by young black males, then what's a sensible person supposed to do? Profile old white women?

[LanternWaste]

463. all 9-11 and stay in the car rather than following and killing

"But if a bunch of crimes were being committed in that neighborhood by young black males, then what's a sensible person supposed to do? "

Call 9-11 and stay in the car rather than following and killing. I suppose the obvious answers aren't very obvious when rationalizing ones way through a discussion.

part II.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Possibly.

At that time of the morning, pretty hard to tell WHAT race someone is.

Also, note that I said this event didn't warrant deadly force, period. I'm just not buying the poster above's attempts to spin the victims actions into harmless nothingness. There's no way he was 'cutting through that yard.'. It's pure silliness.

It's possible he was trespassing or even up to no good WITHOUT warranting deadly force in response. We don't have to make shit up and hide the plain facts to make a victim MORE of a victim than the plan facts lay out for us.

[BainsBane]

82. "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"

That's exactly what the shooter did, and he won a Second Degree murder charge.

If there is no justification for deadly force, why do you continue to defend the killers use of force and blame the boy for being shot? Whatever transgression he did does not compare to a cold blooded killer's actions. You have consistently blamed the child in this thread rather than the killer.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. I didn't defend the shooter, and I didn't blame the kid.

Quit imagining shit.

I simply don't buy your handwaving away that the kid is a perfect angel up to nothing at all. The facts, as reported in the OP's linked story supports no such contention.

When you equivocate or flat out lie to enhance a story, you actually weaken it. Because you make it vulnerable to rhetorical attack. Let the facts stand. He was in a place he had no lawful business being when he was shot. Still a victim. There. Was that hard?

[BainsBane]

64. well, he deserved to die then

That will show the kids to stay off a gun nuts lawn. The temptation to kill was just too irresistible. He just HAD to shoot first. What self respecting gun nut passes up an opportunity to kill when he finds one? Because naturally the very possibility that he MIGHT have thought about stealing something meant he deserved to die.

[HiPointDem]

67. he doesn't have a 'lawn'. look at the properties in the neighborhood before you say dumb things.

it's a neighborhood where armed robbery & assault are pretty common.

For one resident this latest shooting is part of a larger crime problem in the Marigny.

"I don't know the facts over here, but you can't walk out of your house in this neighborhood without someone having a gun to your face and that is not right," said Kathleen who asked that we use only her first name.

"I think 14-year-olds should be at home in bed, but kids are out late," said Meg Marino who lives a couple of doors down from the shooting. She says more needs to be done to stop the crime and violence.

"I think anything we can do make the neighborhood safer for anyone whether you're 14 or 32. I'd just be really looking for solutions to make this neighborhood safer for everybody," said Marino.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Neighbors-React-to-Marigny-Homeowner-Shooting-Alleged-Intruder-217190321.html

[BainsBane]

70. He's charged with Second Degree murder

Obviously the police thought the shooting wasn't warranted.

[HiPointDem]

88. except the victim isn't dead; it's "attempted". i'm not arguing whether or not the shooting

was warranted; i'm arguing that this is nothing like the zimmerman case & it's highly doubtful the kid was looking for his kitty.

same neighborhood where a 15 year old & 16 year old were recently arrested for beating someone nearly to death for no reason at all (no robbery).

[BainsBane]

90. You don't know what the kid was looking for

So why don't you wait for facts before blaming another child for his own murder or attempted murder.

If the CHILD had been an actual threat, the killer would not be charged.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. PRECISELY!

Just like you should wait for the facts before handwaving away that he was 'cutting through the yard' upthread.

That's the only disagreement you and I have here. We're otherwise on the same page.

[BainsBane]

122. I said he "could have been"

I questioned Pelican's assumption that the boy's friend was acting as a "lookout," when there isn't evidence to sustain that charge. I said for all we know he could have been cutting across the yard. What is superior about assuming criminality over non-criminality? We do not know what the boys were doing.

You are upset because I do not assume the boy was a criminal. That is your problem entirely. I know for a fact that boys like the victim in New Orleans don't represent a fraction of the danger that trigger happy gun nuts like the shooter do. Whatever that boy intended, it can't compare to the very real danger posed by the shooters and others like him.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. There is nothing to suggest he was cutting across the yard.

There's nothing for him on the other side.
He left his bike behind in the street.

In fact, the evidence weighs quite heavily AGAINST what you are suggesting as an alternative.

(trespassing is a crime by the way, so it's silly for you to assume he was up to NO crime at all. It would require that he was INVITED to enter the yard by the property owner.)

I am not upset at all. I am quite willing to accept a plausible reason for him to have climbed over that fence at 2 am with a friend nearby, and the bike in the street, and no destination for him on the other side of the property. You have yet to offer one.

That said, I am ALSO prepared to defend him from being assumed to have warranted deadly force as a reasonable response, even if he was up to all manner of fuckery, as long as he didn't present a credible threat to the shooter. So far, all evidence points to that being the case.

This appears to be an unwarranted shooting. Period.

[BainsBane]

128. I don't need to prove shit

I'm not the one accusing the child of a crime.

It's quite clear it bothers you that I don't assume a black child is a criminal because he's in someone's yard. That really is your problem entirely.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Is trespassing suddenly not a crime?

I don't give a shit what race he is. It's a very simple question. Is it, or is it not a crime to trespass?

Now that we have that out of the way, MY CORE POINT is that the ONLY scenario that warrants deadly force in response to this kid's presence, is if he did something reasonably threatening to the shooter.

Facts, not in evidence. Therefore, seems like an unjustifiable shooting.

[BainsBane]

371. Well, by all means

Go to New Orleans and make sure that boy is prosecuted for trespassing from his hospital bed.

[AtheistCrusader]

435. Unlikely.

But it will factor into the trial of the man that shot him. Don't pretend that it won't.

[Pelican]

135. He was literally...

... and I rarely use the word literally... in the middle of committing a crime.

There's nothing to accuse or suggest or hint. Statement of fact...

[BainsBane]

372. What evidence do you have to support that?

[Pelican]

421. Fair enough...

If it turns out that he owns the home instead of the guy with his wife and baby inside, then I'll take it back.

Otherwise, it's trespassing.

[BainsBane]

431. Which concerns you more than attempted murder?

[BainsBane]

131. This shooter and Zimmerman did share your assumptions regarding

criminality at the mere sight of young African American males. There is far too much of that in the world. I have no interest in becoming like them to suit the tastes of someone on the internet. If I did think someone was going to break in my house, I'd call the cops, as law abiding people do. Only murderers shoot first.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Quit trying to smear me with that bullshit.

He was trespassing. Period. That's a crime. Done.

Thanks for repeating my line about what I would do in the same situation. (Call the cops) I appreciate the backhanded validation, while you falsely try to associate me with captain Ahab the block watch captain. Fuck that noise.

[BainsBane]

370. Trespassing is what, a misdemeanor?

Killing someone is a felony and an act of evil.

I'll be sure to keep in mind what a stickler you are for the law the next thread I see gunners advocating violating the law in reaction to some regulation they don't like.

[AtheistCrusader]

434. Nice backpedal.

I wasn't comparing what happened to him, to what he was doing. Only pointing out that he was unambiguously committing a crime that you refuse to acknowledge.

I already specified AT LEAST FOUR TIMES that this does NOT WARRANT DEADLY FORCE IN RESPONSE. PERIOD.

[HiPointDem]

96. you're ridiculous. there was no legitimate reason for him being on their property at 2 am.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. BUT there are a range of even criminal acts that DO NOT warrant deadly force.

Could have been peeing on the car.
Could have keyed it.
Could have been stealing something from it.
Could have been using it as cover to steal something else.
And a number of other possibilities besides.

Any of those COULD be true, and it would not justify deadly force in response.

[HiPointDem]

106. i'm not debating over whether deadly force was or was not warranted. i'm arguing that bane's

painting this as some kids having some innocent fun is just stupid.

1) high crime neighborhood (violent crime)
2) 2 am
3) enters property by climbing a chest high iron fence with spikes on it
4) 'yard' is barely big enough to park a car; trespasser is within feet of house

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Fair enough.

I objected to his attempted whitewashing as well. It's counterproductive at the least. Just let the story stand as it is. Illustrates who the injured party is, quite well without spin.

[ceonupe]

159. Is it possible the current media and political

Climate forced the arrest?

When more facts are released we will know more but as of now the castle doctrine (all 50 states have it) applies and this won't make it to trial based on what we know now.

Do I think the kid deserved to be shot maybe not. Do I believe the owner had the right to shoot maybe so maybe not. We don't know.

What I do know is the kid was behind a gate in private property at 1:45am. Maybe the parents can get a civil case (doubt it).

[BainsBane]

373. the law doesn't allow even the most deranged

gun nut to kill someone just because they are in his yard. That is not what the Castle Doctrine says.

[HiPointDem]

451. 'castle doctrine' is not an explicit written statement, it's a body of tradition, precedent & law.

there isn't a single text called 'the castle doctrine'.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Except of course that I EXPLICITLY said it didn't warrant deadly force.

Tilt at straw men elsewhere, I'm not playing with you.

[BainsBane]

84. Yet your primary purpose in this thread

Is to blame the child rather than the killer. You have done that consistently.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Simply untrue.

I have said repeatedly that his presence on that property DOES NOT WARRANT DEADLY FORCE.

Should I make it bold? Say it ten times over while clicking my heels?
I'll say it again: I don't buy your contention that the kid was up to NOTHING at all. It doesn't matter. Hell, maybe he was stealing a stereo. Who gives a shit. Petty theft. DOES NOT JUSTIFY LETHAL FORCE. PERIOD.

You drop your ridiculous whitewashing of his presence on the shooter's property, and we have no disagreement, you and I. He was doing SOMETHING he shouldn't have been doing. Covering that up does not help him. The facts are plain, deadly force is unwarranted regardless.

[BainsBane]

94. Let's make clear what we do know

We know a boy was shot and is in critical condition, and the shooter is charged with attempted murder. We do not KNOW what the CHILD was doing other than he was in the killer's yard. If he had been an actual threat, the shooter would no be charged.

If the facts are so clear that deadly force was unwarranted, you can stop blaming a fourteen year old boy for his own shooting now.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Damn, you were doing so good until that last sentence.

Had to ruin it with your imagination.

Well, except for one point, charges or no charges is not necessarily predicated on the kid being an ACTUAL threat, but whether the shooter could convincingly articulate that he believed the kid was a threat. Sounds like he failed that test.

But again, I AGREE the shooting was unwarranted, and I do not blame the kid for being a victim. You are imagining something I didn't actually say.

[BainsBane]

100. Yet

Your posts in this thread have been devoted to what the boy was doing wrong, that he shouldn't have trespassed, that he must have been doing something nefarious on the property. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he wasn't. The facts are not known. But one only need read your posts in this thread to see what your role here has been.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. You handwaved his presence away as being a simple matter of passing through the yard.

That was a silly contention and you know it.

My point was, he could have been actually doing ANY of the logically nefarious things that follow the ACTUAL facts as presented so far, and it STILL WOULD NOT WARRANT DEADLY FORCE IN RESPONSE.

Deadly force is authorized to meet force or the threat of force. Not to protect your car stereo, or whatever stupid fucking thing this poor kid was up to at 2am in his yard.

The kid SHOULD NOT have been there. Let's be clear on that point. And all signs point to him AT THE LEAST being a trespasser, if not worse, but NONE of it points to him being an actual threat, and therefore he does not meet the bar of force, or the threat of force, warranting deadly force in response.

It doesn't matter what he was doing, so long as it wasn't a credible threat to the shooter.
Not hard. This is very simple stuff.

[BainsBane]

109. What I said is the shooter assumed nefarious intent

and tried to kill. Some posters here have made the same assumption. I don't claim to know what the boy was doing. I don't assume he's a criminal.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. There is a spectrum of nefarious intent that lies OUTSIDE the continuum warranting

deadly force in response. Do you think you could limit your objection to that?

Because if you try to paint him as being engaged in a perfectly reasonable act, you will continue to attract objections. He was up to something. What he was NOT up to, was something that warranted deadly force. That's all.

I agree the shooter assumed nefarious intent. I would too. BUT I wouldn't shoot some kid for being in my front yard at 2 am doing whatever he was doing. I'd call the cops, because that is what reasonable people do, even if some kid is putting sugar in your gas tank, or stealing your stereo, or slashing your tires, or who really gives a shit what he was up to. It doesn't matter.

[HiPointDem]

119. if you have ever lived in the kind of neighborhood where armed robbery, armed burglary, and

assault on the streets is commonplace, you'd assume nefarious intent too.

that's just the way it is.

[pipi_k]

222. At nearly 2 AM

Damned right someone's going to assume someone is up to no good!

And I don't give a shit what color the trespasser is, which, as someone mentioned above, would be somewhat difficult to tell at that hour of the night, so it's possible the homeowner didn't even KNOW the kid was black.

Just about everyone in this thread is agreeing that shooting someone for trespassing is plain wrong.

What you are strongly suggesting, if not outright saying, is that people do NOT have the right to assume that someone on their property at 2 AM is up to no good.

OK, here's a good example that happened recently...one night the Mr and I are watching TV at around 8 PM. Not dark, but getting toward dusk, and there's a knocking on the living room window. We never saw them on the security cameras...the driveway alarm didn't go off. No idea who it could be...the Mr goes out to see what's up and I go to grab the shotgun (which is ALWAYS loaded with a blank cartridge...no real shells).

Well, it turns out to be a couple of (white) neighbors from down the road stopping by to tell us that they've seen big stands of Hogweed along the road.

WTF??? They couldn't put a note in the mailbox out by the road? They couldn't stop by the next day?

White. people.

I don't give a rat's ass what color they are...if they show up at my house at an odd time, they don't belong there unless it's to say the hill is on fire and we need to evacuate.

[okieinpain]

563. i blame the kid and i dont feel sorry he got shot.

Eventually if he kept getting away with it he and his friend would get bolder.
Then the headline would be 14 year old kills husband and wife for 200 bucks.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

321. I wonder why the little boy's parents

were allowing him to play outside at 2 am.

[HiPointDem]

97. the child is not dead, so there is no killer.

[BainsBane]

104. Not for Landry's lack of trying

Someone shoots another person in the head, they mean to kill him.

[HiPointDem]

117. assuming they had a clear choice of where to shoot (probably not since the kid was standing

right next to the house) & were aiming well (maybe not if the shooter was in fear).

you sure jump to a lot of conclusions for someone who keeps telling me i don't know what was going on, the kid could have been looking for his kitty.

[pipi_k]

232. Unless the shooter

is a marksman, or shot from less than a few feet away or something, it's also possible that he meant to shoot for an arm or foot but was so nervous that he happened to hit the head.

There are any number of possibilities here...not just the ONE possibility that he actually aimed for the head.

[BainsBane]

383. If someone doesn't mean to kill, he probably shouldn't shoot

Seems pretty clear to me.

[HiPointDem]

447. yes, well, it also seems clear to you that a kid might jump a spiked fence at 2 am in a high crime

neighborhood because he heard a kitty.

you diminish the martin case by associating this one with it. i wonder if that's your intent.

[BainsBane]

449. I never mentioned a kitty

Nor do I pretend to be clairvoyant. I think killers and attempted killers are dangerous and guns make them all the more so. You are more concerned with 14 yr old children you think might steal something. You obviously consider 14 year old black children a greater danger to society than killers and attempted killers. That really is your problem. I don't happen to be a person who values stuff more than human life, and I have no interested in becoming the kind of sociopath who does. I have a right to value human life over property. If you don't like that, it is your problem entirely.

[HiPointDem]

450. you're obviously heavily invested in the straw man franchise, since i explicitly said 'doesn't

mean he should have been shot' multiple times.

you compared this case to the martin case. it is not like the martin case. the martin case became a cause celebre because martin was *not* trespassing or doing anything illegal, just walking home from the store. despite that, he was stalked and shot.

you diminish the martin case when you associate it with this one. i wonder why you are doing that.

[pintobean]

454. Bullshit.

Nor do I pretend to be clairvoyant.

You obviously consider 14 year old black children a greater danger to society than killers and attempted killers. That really is your problem.

You are accusing her of racism, and that would take clairvoyance. That's at least the second person in this thread. You make the accusation when you are shown to be wrong and really have nothing else. It's a cheap and selfish insult. Every time you haphazardly throw those accusations around, you water down the meaning. You're doing a disservice to everyone who actually has to deal with bigotry and racism in their daily lives.

[Jenoch]

508. This is a sensible thing to say.

Does it also apply to the Florida woman who get 20 years for firing a weapon? (Florida's 10-20-life mandatory sentencing law).

[BainsBane]

367. How does the substantiate the poster's point

about how cutting through yards is only possible in the suburbs?

You've made very clear you think this child is Genghis Khan. There really isn't a need to make it another fifty times.

[AtheistCrusader]

433. It's like you hit some keyword you set up, and you just stop reading.

Try again.

[pipoman]

192. It says nothing about "cutting through his yard" either..

in fact it says he left his bike on the street behind him.."cutting through the yard" almost can't be accurate, you should probably find another made up scenario to explain the kid's actions if you wish to remain relevant, eh?

[pipi_k]

236. I guess in some worlds...

when a kid leaves his bike behind to "cut through someone's yard", the bike levitates and flies itself over to where the kid told it to wait for him.

[BainsBane]

357. It says nothing about being a look out either

The point is we don't know. My point is we don't have the information. Why not attack Pelican's made up scenario? How is it that you gunners become so outraged that some of us don't believe black children deserve to be shot in the head on sight?

[noiretextatique]

537. not surprised

the poster is a zimmerman apologist.

[hrmjustin]

538. he is gone now.

[noiretextatique]

541. it is long past time

now they need to get rid of the rest of 'em

[hrmjustin]

542. I alerted on that guy so many times and they always came back split. It infuriated me all the time.

[noiretextatique]

545. likewise

thank goodness he finally uncloaked enough for the moderators to ACT. andi agree: it was LONG past time.

[hrmjustin]

546. Skinner did it in the end.

[noiretextatique]

547. yay, Skinner

smells better already.

[hrmjustin]

548. Agreed but he will try to come back.

[noiretextatique]

549. i will be waiting for his sorry ass...i can spot a

troll a 100 paces.

[hrmjustin]

550. I am on MIrt so send me a PM if you see him or others that seem like a troll.

[noiretextatique]

551. will do...thanks

there were a couple who showed up during the zimmerman trial...i will pm you.

[hrmjustin]

552. Most of them were banned by the old mirt team. But some slipped through.

[pnwmom]

123. Doesn't matter. There shouldn't be a death penalty for trespassing

or for being a possible lookout.

The shooter had at least three other options. He could have called 911. He could have called out a window, warning the boy that he had a gun. If worse came to worse, and he felt he had to shoot to protect himself, he could have shot the teen in a leg.

When you're safe inside a house and the person you're worried about doesn't appear to have a gun, you don't have to go outside and shoot them in the head.

[Igel]

292. You were almost convincing.

Until "and the person you're worried about doesn't appear to have a gun."

High crime area, some criminals have guns. Guns are small. You can put them in a belt holster behind you and under a shirt. Ahem.

When you see somebody next to your door and car at 2 a.m., having jumped a fence and presumably gotten you out of bed (possibly waking your kid or pregnant wife), you want to defend your property and your family. You want to minimize risk to you and minimize the risk to the person who has no apparent business being where he is except to do something criminal.

You don't stop to think, "Gee, he might not have a gun so the safest thing to do is assume he doesn't have a gun." No, you think, "He might have a gun so I should assume he does." When he's in the dark and standing behind a car you don't see his hands, you don't see his body. You see shoulders and head. Then it's a question of whether of whether you perceive him to be doing things that might lead you to think he's using the gun he might have. That's going to be a judgment call that has to be evaluated based not upon what we know days later but based upon what the shooter knew when he was there and deciding whether to aim and fire.

Don't know what 911 response times are in the area. But I have to assume that what others have said about the crime rate in the area is true, or perceived to be true.

Empathy promotes understanding. I understand both sides and don't have quite enough information here to judge. As with GZ/TM, all some have to hear is skin color and who shot whom and the verdict's in, the case prejudged.

[pnwmom]

305. He was safe in the house. He could have shouted through the window that he had a gun

and he could planted himself by the door, ready to shoot in the unlikely event that the teen came through the door anyway. OR, if the teens remained a concern at the back door, he could have led his wife and child out the FRONT door, like a rational person who didn't have a gun.

No THING in a house is worth a life.

This is why Stand your Ground laws everywhere should be repealed. They make too many people think this kind of situation could be justified.

[Hoyt]

142. There you go, a good excuse to shoot unarmed teen in head over a bit of property.

[ileus]

145. Tough call....I suppose we'll see what comes out in the wash.

[Dash87]

278. Because he was trying to steal stuff.

But is it really worth shooting somebody in the head over? What is this. the Wild West? Just yell at him and go tell his parents or something. Most kids will crap their pants at the sound of an angry, yelling adult and burn a hole in the ground from running away.

Instead, this maniac had to shoot.

[Pelican]

284. Sounds a little "Leave it to Beaver" to me...

"Go home or I'll tell your mother!"

If he gave a crap about his mother or had a decent one then he wouldn't be out breaking the law at 2 am.

The fact that he is 14 doesn't exclude him from a violent reaction as we have seen time and again in the news.

I'll say it again. The easiest way to avoid all of this is to not break into other people's property. Then you don't have to wonder if the rightful owner is going to call the cops or put one in your head.

Easy peasy...

I'm really glad you mentioned that was your signature by the way.. Phew...

[Dash87]

289. Maybe his mother doesn't care, but what was he going to steal anyhow?

A few coins? Even yelling at burglars causes them to scatter - almost invariably! This guy left the safety of his home, went outside, and then shot this little kid in the head for a couple of quarters (and probably not even that if his car was locked - thieves will almost never break windows).

Nobody deserves to die, no matter what they're stealing (okay, minus maybe nuclear secrets, or whatever, but you get the point - stuff thieves usually steal). What a horrible thing to do. He may have turned his life around at 18 and regretted his mistakes, and then became a great person. We'll never know.

In a non-barbaric society, we don't do things like this. We don't shoot at the drop of a hat like it's a rabid dog roaming in your yard. I hope this nut goes to jail.


Also, is this my signature, or...

[GreenStormCloud]

411. He shot too soon. The kid outside the house was not yet a threat.

He should have called 911 and waited on the phone with gun in hand. Once the person breaks in, then they are a threat and can be shot. If the police get there first, let them handle it.

[Beacool]

536. I read some of the comments in the article.

Apparently the kid who was shot had brush ups with the law in the past for burglary.

There's also a curfew in New Orleans. These kids should have been home at almost 2 AM.

[JI7]

17. why didn't he call the police ?

[BainsBane]

18. Because he wanted to kill

That's what killers do.

[Jenoch]

511. Whom did he kill?

[BainsBane]

517. The boy is in critical condition

nearly dead. Is it really necessary to defend every homicidal lunatic who uses a gun?

[Jenoch]

518. I have no intention of defending this guy,

and I have not. I am interested in facts and several times in this thread you referred to the idiot in NOLA as a killer. Stick to the facts.

[sigmasix]

25. this is the missing element

Using protection of personal property as an excuse to use deadly force is immoral. The police should have been called at the first sign of the teen trespassing. We live in a country that includes a deep investment in the mechanisms of law and order. Gun nuts and other right wing extremists have slowly destroyed our ability to garauntee access to the mechanisms of law and order for minorities and the poor. Right wing extremism includes plans for the wholesale destruction of American liberties by sabotaging the mechanisms of governing, legislating and law enforcing. The privatization of most every successful government program and infrastructure is near complete. America is dissolving into component parts, or confederacies.
And the NRA and other gun-fetish specialists continue to lie, cheat, steal and murder thier way into authorizing gun legislation that makes the creation of hundreds of Waco and Ruby Ridge type outcomes as true NRA right wing beleivers prepare for the end of times. I think the sick fucks in charge of the right wing machine are hoping for an actual armed rebellion that includes Americans murdering Americans in the name of Koche brother's power consolidation and Limbaugh/Nugent-inspired acts of truely cruel cowardice against unarmed "n#**ers, libruls and f%##ots". Fuck this guy that shot a child in the head because it was easier than calling the cops- and fuck every murder-lust appologist that defends this behavior.

[freshwest]

28. Not exactly a Trayvon Martin incident, from your link:

Hazouri said his video, which he gave to NOPD detectives, shows the two teens talking in the middle of Mandeville Street outside of Landry's house. The video then shows the teen in the light-colored T-shirt walk his bike across Mandeville toward Landry's house. Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.

That's not walking down the street and minding your own business like Trayvon was. Not stalking, following and accusing, but trespassing.

It's not self-defense in a public place, but castle doctrine. And trigger happy, for damned sure, and possibly the same attitude as Z.

That I'll agree on. But not all of the circumstances. There's video, but the police charged him, so they found more than the link shows, too.

There is a simliarity in that this guy is connected and so his family. I'm hoping more will come out and the youngster survives, but not hopeful for his future. He will be disabled.

The homeowners's reaction, IMO, was extreme. If the video is as stated, I doubt he'ill be convicted of attempted 2nd degree MURDER.

Unless there is a LOT left out of this article. The NOPD must have found out something very incriminating.

What is the solution? Less guns? A curfew for youngsters after dark to protect them from trigger happy homeowners?

I don't think the first will happen and the second would be inappropriate.

I used to ride my bike at that time of night, as it was the only time it was cool. There was less traffic and with fellow riders it was safer that way.

I suspect this kid and his friend was doing the same as I did, although I was an adult at that time.

We don't know why he went over the fence. Maybe he heard a kitten or a puppy crying.

The dog began barking, he didn't like him jumping the fence.

Or so we're being told at tbe link.

I think a lot more is going to come out before this is through.

I do not agree with you this is another Trayvon case in its entirety. We may learn why this was done. It's a tragedy for the youngster and his family.

But I don't have any sympathy for the homeowner. Castle doctrine at one time was confined to getting into the house, not the yard.

[BainsBane]

31. I don't believe you can just kill someone for being in your yard

unless you're in Texas. I'm not sure of the particularities of the law, however.

It's not exactly the same, but it has some similarities. It's a gun nut who saw a black kid and shot first.

[freshwest]

47. That is the case in Texas, and some other places, It didn't used to be.

They had to get in the house or it wan't the same.

And I had my house broken into once down there. We yelled and the guy took off and ran away, He was INSIDE the house and could have been legally shot.

This was before a string of really brutal crimes happened, and things got more paranoid. I won't go into the details, but sometimes a person breaking in will not just rob, but assault, rape, torture and kill residents.

But I see nothing of that in this case, I see a trigger happy guy who didn't want anyone looking at his car or whatever. That's not worth a life.

And he may definitely have shot him because he was black. That is the main similiarity here. And the fact that Z got off could have made this guy do this and figure he could get away with it.

It just was not necessary. JMHO.

[HiPointDem]

36. about 1/4 of the doors & windows in that neighborhood have bars over them; it's apparently

a high crime area (as is NO).

the kid was 14. which is old enough you don't go into other people's yards at 2 in the morning (especially when you have to climb a fence with spikes on it to do so).

The layout of the neighborhood is such that 1) there's nowhere to get to by going through that yard but into another neighbor's yard, and 2) the blocks are so small that cutting through doesn't save much of a walk, and 3) there's no yard to speak of, it's basically a parking space for the car.

Nah, I don't believe for a minute that the kid jumped a spiked gate at 2 am because he heard a kitten.

[joshcryer]

40. Since they charged him I expect the video is the reason.

If you are pointing at gun at a threat and said threat doesn't advance and is subdued, you can't shoot 'em.

This is what happened with that guy who was filming his murdering of those drunk dudes in TX I believe it was. He claimed SYG and lost bad, because the other drunk dudes were no threat at all.

So in this case I suspect the cops saw the video, determined that a jury would see the nature of the kill, and find the shooter guilty.

In other words, the kill wasn't reasonable.

[freshwest]

54. I agree. The guy in TX was not even on his own property. There is something about this that's off.

I'm thinking, but don't know, if the laws in LA are close to those in TX. If the kid had a chance to retreat or was running away, that would be murder, definitely.

I think the case you're speaking of down there was the case of a guy that went out of his house and shot some guys that were not on his property. No way. It was the property that mattered, and he clearly provoked the whole thing, Guilty of murder, that's what the jury found.

There was another case, though, the one of the guy who called police, was told not to engage and did. He did it under the law of protecting the property of his neighbor. After he followed and confronted them, he said he was scared, and shot them.

That was like Z. But he got off.

I agree, there is more to this. It could be that I am lacking in imagination, but I don't see that much of a threat in this case.

Just in the guys mind. That is way too subjective. I hope we don't have a slew of these cases post-Z, but afraid we will.

The guy who shot the people at the gas station in FL is trying for that angle. He claims that the prosecutor wants to placate the AA community over his case. He made his bed, now he can lie down in it. He didn't have to shoot when he could have left.

That's my idea about Z, too.

[joshcryer]

59. I dunno, even if the kid wasn't walking away.

I think that video shows something that a jury is going to look at and say "well damn, that ain't right at all." Basically I am thinking the kid was shot execution style after being fully compliant to the demands of the accused. In this case it wouldn't be about laws it'd be about getting a jury to watch the video and make their mind up.

In the TX case the guy did have a right to defend himself, but the jury saw that video, realized that he was the one instigating, realized that he was the one setting himself up (using key words like "I fear for my life&quot , that he went down there and wanted to kill someone.

In both cases they willingly handed over the video. I'd reckon like in the TX case, the accused saw their own video or imagined their own video proving their own deluded side of the story, but in reality the video proves the exact opposite (basically their vigilante justice mindset).

Frankly I can't wait until things like Google glass are completely ubiquitous. I know people hate security culture but I know damn well I'd want all my personal life events to be recorded. I do my damnedest to treat others right and I know if something went down I'd very likely be exonerated due to my personal video.

[calimary]

29. Oh for God's SAKE!!!

We HAVE TO stop that damn law. Or else we ALL will be at risk. Not just teenagers with dark skin. Those who get too comfy with the idea of taking it upon themselves to settle things once-and-for-all - will not stop otherwise. And even if the law is done away with, some of 'em will still do it, but then we can at least have a better chance of locking them up for a good long time!

[Pelican]

63. Which law are you referring to?

[calimary]

177. The "Stand Your Ground" business.

And before anyone starts in with - "oh that didn't come up in the trial" blah-blah-blah, just remember this: the whole public zeitgeist in Florida was and is steeped in the understanding of "Stand Your Ground." It was unspoken. It came up in jury instructions, conveniently unlike a decent explanation for manslaughter, even while it wasn't presented, per se, during the trial. Just about anyone in the state of Florida was - and is - clearly aware of the presence of the Stand Your Ground mentality. It's a high-profile law that's gotten plenty of publicity ever since it first came about. This isn't the first case of it ever to come to the public's attention. Zimbo had had training and took classes in which he was given full exposure to the Stand Your Ground law, and it's widely recognized that he lied about it when questioned - telling authorities he hadn't heard of it (when his instructor was on record saying he had a clear understanding of it from his class work). There was plenty of talk of it surrounding the original crime and the fallout from it, long before ANY jury was chosen. And if Juror B37 was married to an attorney (one who, we've since learned, knew Mark O'Mara), and was able to spend time with her husband even during the period when the jurors were sequestered, you better believe it was in the back of everyone's mind. And unfortunately, for those who automatically assume blacks are nogoodniks, it sits holstered in the back of their minds like an extra gun.

Anyone who thinks Stand Your Ground didn't impact this trial is kidding themselves. I'd bet anyone with racist tendencies, or those already predisposed toward mistrusting young African Americans (and they don't even have to be young), has it in the backs of their minds - as a law that will back you up if you see someone you don't like who makes you feel somehow fearful. It's been allowed to seep down into public awareness and become part of the proverbial "water table" of the overall public mindset.

I wonder how many more shooting victims we'll have before something's finally done about this?

[Pelican]

255. Just want you to be clear...

This wouldn't fall under SYG which falls exclusively outside of the home...

This falls under castle doctrine. The closest that you could say is that SYG is similar to Castle doctrine outside the home, with a reduced standard of duty to retreat, but in this case it doesn't apply as the young man had trespassed onto private property.

Thus back to the castle...

[hack89]

265. SYG does not apply on private property

so while you have some valid points about SYG, they are irrelevant to this particular case.

[calimary]

341. Point taken - from you both.

But that was never my understanding of SYG. I thought the castle part meant your own castle as in your own home and/or private property. If indeed it means any-old-where you feel like it, then all the more reason to see it done away with! Because that would mean that ANYBODY ANYWHERE could be perceived for any reason to be some sort of threat, and somebody could just shoot you arbitrarily because they "felt" like they were being threatened. On somebody's whim - as long as they claimed they felt threatened. That's just simple "License to Kill," and therefore it seems even more stupid and reckless and short-sighted to me than I already thought it was. GRANTED, not claiming to be an authority here.

I can in a small way understand a SYG policy if it involves home invasion or something that in some way violates or endangers your personal space in your own residence.

[hack89]

360. No one should have to retreat in their own home

that is a concept of self defense that dates back to English common law.

As for your fears of SYG - you still have to convince the police, a judge and a jury. People are convicted in SYG cases all the time. Criminals plead self defense all the time - it does't mean they will get away with it.

[GreenStormCloud]

414. Feeling won't work for an SYG defense.

Lots of people think that a person can shoot if the "feel" threatened. NOT EVEN. NOPE. NO WAY. It just doesn't work that way. Even for SYG the elements of self-defense still have to be there. The person you are defending against has to have had means, motive, opportunity, and an immediate demonstration of intent to kill you are do great bodily harm to you. If you can't show that those elements were there when you shot, you are in deep trouble.

Claiming that "I felt scared" is enough is pure hyperbole.

[flvegan]

33. DU armchair lawyers, SWARM!!!! lol

[Warpy]

34. Yeah, he feels just terrible that they arrested him, I'm sure.

SYG laws have to be taken off the books. These gun happy jokers think it's open season on teenagers, especially black teenagers. This has to stop.

I hope that poor kid survives. He's got months of rehab ahead of him if he does. Landry should have to pick up the entire bill.

[TorchTheWitch]

92. This has nothing at all to do with SYG

If there's any law that covers what he did it's basic Castle doctrine. This was his own gated property, not out in public.

That said, it's nuts that he shot the kid just because he hopped the fence and was in his yard. Yeah, the kid was probably up to no good intending to steal or vandalize something, but that's not a good reason to shoot them. He probably could have just hollered out the window at kid, and the kid finding himself discovered would likely have tried to run away. There's just no reason to kill someone that comes onto your property without some actual REASONABLE fear that they're going to attempt to break into your home and harm you or someone else in the home. Seeing as he's charged with attempted murder the police saw some kind of evidence on his surveillance tape that showed he didn't have any such reasonable fear. Castle doctrine doesn't cover someone killing a person just going into their yard... there has to be an actual reasonable threat.

[SunSeeker]

37. Why shoot at the heart or the head? Why not lower the gun and shoot at the legs? It will stop him.

I don't get why you have to shoot to kill, especially when the person is not harming you in any way.

[No Vested Interest]

48. I posed this question in regard to Trayvon being shot through the heart.

The DU response was that gun users are taught to shoot for the largest body mass, that being the chest, and, in this case, the head, apparently.

[SunSeeker]

52. I can understand that instruction if you are trying to kill.

But that still begs the question: why are you trying to kill?

[freshwest]

61. That's a good question. But I think their excuse is that their aim is poor.

So they shoot at the center of the person they are shooting at even though virtually any GSW would stop a person unless they were on meth, bath salts or PCP and did not have normal pain response.

[SunSeeker]

65. I would think any gunshot in your direction would stop you.

I am sure that kid would have run away if that man fired the gun into the ground.

But hey, that woman in Florida got 20 years for firing a warning shot, whereas Z got 0 for killing a kid, so I guess the lesson is indeed to shoot to kill.

[HiPointDem]

133. he couldn't have 'run away'. the yard is too small to run anywhere, and to get out you have

to climb over the same iron fence with spikes you jumped to get in. the back and sides are blocked by the surrounding houses.

that parking strip is nearly the entire 'yard', + a couple of trees to the right. the car was parked on the parking strip. the kid was by the car a couple of feet from the back door. how good do you think the visibility is at 2 am?

[SunSeeker]

214. Apparently the visibility was good enough to hit the kid in the head with one shot. nt

[HiPointDem]

333. or poor enough.

[SunSeeker]

334. So it was just a "lucky shot"? A "tragic accident"?

I haven't seen any facts to back that up. Have you? If it was a accident, the shooter would have said so.

[HiPointDem]

338. I have no idea whether he aimed for the head or not, and neither do you. What I know is it's a

neighborhood with a fair amount of violent crime, a lot of it committed by 'kids'.

Those arguing that the kid might have innocently been in the yard are delusional; those trying to compare this to the martin case, ditto.

[SunSeeker]

379. There is no doubt the kid was trespassing. But trespassing does not warrant the death penalty. nt

[HiPointDem]

438. & i never claimed it did. i said:

1. this is nothing like the martin case.
2. the people saying that the kid might have had innocent reasons for being there are stupid or disingenuous.
3. the homeowner had reason to be afraid of violence in that situation.

[Igel]

297. I'll just cite others.

The only reason to shoot is in self-defense. If you shoot in self-defense you must be in fear of your life.

That means you shoot to kill. Warning shots won't definitely stop the threat. A shot to the leg will probably allow the killer, if he has a knife or gun, to continue to threaten you. So you shoot to kill.

If you want to shoot to kill you aim at what's large. That's the torso. Head shots are harder and dispreferred. But in this case, if the kid was largely behind a car, then you only really have head and shoulders to aim at, and the head's the bigger target.

The woman who got 20 years had a lot more problems than just firing a warning shot. Violating a restraining order, leaving the guy's house to get a gun and then return with it, firing in the general direction of her kids. Yes, the shot it hit the ceiling; but it ricocheted to hit the ceiling and nobody would be making this a big point in the woman's defense if it had ricocheted to kill one of her own kids. A legal case is all details, and if you get them wrong it's easy to mischaracterize it. The same's true for a lot of things. A forest is made up of trees.

[SunSeeker]

310. Other than standing in the yard, how was the kid threatening him? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

471. She didn't fire a warning shot.

That is a lie that her lawyer has been putting out. The truth is that she left her house, went to her car, got her gun, went back into the house and fired a shot in the direction of her husband and her two kids. The bullet missed and went into a wall, deflected and went into the ceiling.

[BainsBane]

472. In other words, she should have killed the guy

Like any self respecting gun coward would do?
Funny how her lawyer lies but Zimmy's lawyer tells the truth. You couldn't be more obvious.

So just how should the law be written: Only white men get to claim self defense? The rest of us are target practice for losers with guns?

[GreenStormCloud]

474. Then it would have been murder.

Have you even looked at the links that I gave on the facts of that case?

[X_Digger]

478. You don't fire a warning shot to win an argument. That's reckless endangerment at minimum.

You don't shoot unless you fear imminent death or grave bodily harm. Firing a guninside an occupied home is using deadly force, even if you don't intend to hit anyone.

[HiPointDem]

58. I'm guessing, but: the neighborhood is apparently kind of high crime to start with & there's

been some high-profile senseless violent crime lately, e.g. from march:

The beating according to the NOPD unfolded just before 5 a.m. Sunday morning. Police say the trio taunted their victim, even returning as he lay helpless for one last kick to the head.

"He received several fractures to his face, several lacerations to his face. Last that we were told was that he might have to have cosmetic surgery to his face," said Flores.

"It's even more scary. The fact that they didn't take his wallet, his cell phone. They seemed to just want to cause him an injury -- which they did," said Jamie Midgley, a Bywater resident.

Midgley and his wife, Jenny, live in the area and spend a lot of time in the Marigny. The couple say they were victims of an armed robbery in the same area just last month.

"We didn't see him. He came out and held us up at gunpoint. He took our things and when he was done he told us to turn around and run. When we went to turn around and run he fired the gun and told us we weren't fast enough apparently," said Jenny Wiltfong.

While police try to track down the three individuals captured on-camera committing the vicious attack, community members say much more needs to be done to stop the violent crime.

"These last few months, in these neighborhoods, in these few blocks have been really bad," said Midgley.

In this recent case, police say one of the attackers in the trio tried to approach a couple getting into a car just before beating that man. The NOPD says that couple pretended to be armed which scared away the group.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/crime/Graphic-Video-Captures-Brutal-Marigny-Attack--3-Wanted-Suspects-198556951.html

and a neighbor commenting on the latest:

For one resident this latest shooting is part of a larger crime problem in the Marigny.

"I don't know the facts over here, but you can't walk out of your house in this neighborhood without someone having a gun to your face and that is not right," said Kathleen who asked that we use only her first name.

"I think 14-year-olds should be at home in bed, but kids are out late," said Meg Marino who lives a couple of doors down from the shooting. She says more needs to be done to stop the crime and violence.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Neighbors-React-to-Marigny-Homeowner-Shooting-Alleged-Intruder-217190321.html

combine that fear with the fact that the kid was in his handkerchief-sized yard, close to the small house, at 2 am (and had to leap a chest-high spiked iron gate to get in), and the man had a wife and daughter in the house as well, & police response times are reportedly over 14 minutes and you can see how it can happen. you can see how the man might think the person might be violent, might be ready to break into his house, etc.

not saying it's right, but i don't think this case is anything like the martin case, which didn't happen in the middle of the night, which didn't involve anyone trespassing into gated private property, etc.

this happened in the same neighborhood in april: it was posted at DU at the time.

&feature=player_embedded&t=16

Looks like there's been several armed robberies, burglaries, assaults in the last few months.

[TorchTheWitch]

101. why shoot at all?

Why not just holler out the window that you see them and are calling the police? The kid would likely have been scared shitless and tried to run away.

There should be no shooting at all without an ACTUAL reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm. The shooter claims he thought the kid was an intruder, but he can't reasonably think any such thing as that since he shot him before the kid DID anything that showed he intended to break into the home. All he did was hop the fence into the guy's yard before the guy shot him. That in no way is any reasonable threat of home invasion.

[SunSeeker]

110. I agree. That is one of the reasons I don't own a gun.

Guns in the home are not necessary for protection, in fact, they increase the chance you will be shot.

But say you did own a gun, I just think the "shoot to kill" effort every time you fire a gun is blood-thirsty.

[NickB79]

139. Because shooting a handgun isn't as easy

As Hollywood makes it seem.

It takes a lot of practice to make precise hits with a handgun, much more so than with a rifle since it doesn't have a stock for stability. I always chuckle when I see a zombie movie where the guys are running and shooting handguns everywhere, making headshots like it's nothing. Not gonna happen.

Add to the fact that you're hyped with adrenaline, hands shaking, only a second or two to make a decision about what to do, it might be dark or otherwise hard to see your target clearly, etc.

In a justified self-defense shooting, you DON'T shoot unless your life is in imminent danger. However, if your life IS in imminent danger, you want to put as many of your bullets into the bad guy as possible, into vital organs so that he is no longer a threat. That means firing center-mass.

[SunSeeker]

211. It's pretty essy to shoot into the ground to scare the kid away.

Why does the first bullet have to be for the immediate kill, especially when the kid was doing nothing to threaten you other than standing in your yard?

[ceonupe]

238. in many cases of shootings

the incident is less than 3 shoots total most 1-2.

also if you miss on your first shot and the person you are shooting happens to be armed you may not get a second shot.

the reason is the same reason police do shoot at arms or legs.

the center mass is easier to hit and contains lots of vital organs. hitting a vital organ is necessary to drop a threat. This is the reason the police moved from 38special and some use of 9mm to .40 cal to get penetration thru clothes and into vital organs. Lookup "FBI Miami Shootout" for more details.

Also a head shot if you can make it gives you the best chance that a person will be completely incapacitated and even lose involuntary muscle reflexes. Head shots are often difficult and that is why most train for center mass shots. If you are a little high you get the head if a little low u get the genitailal and guts which also can be deadly and cause a person to bleed out fast. n ass or dick shot can often be fatal.

[SunSeeker]

243. Cops taking down a perp should use those tactics.

But this was a kid standing in a yard.

[NickB79]

428. Warning shots get you put in jail

For example: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57595322-504083/marissa-alexander-update-rev-jesse-jackson-visits-fla-woman-serving-20-years-in-prison-for-firing-warning-shot/

You SHOULD NOT fire a gun unless you fear for your life. And if you fear for your life, you are expected to behave as such. If you have time to fire a warning shot, you have time to retreat, and you therefore aren't in imminent danger, so you have no reason to fire a round in the first place.

[Hoyt]

143. Because gun nuts are taught that by their mentors/instructors.

And, they are too callous, and often stupid, to question the instructor profiting off their gun lust.

[Jenoch]

512. If there is no threat

you don't get to shoot at all.

[blkmusclmachine]

44. Stand Your Ground = White Mans Law

Vigilante "justice"

[uponit7771]

493. +1

[Heather MC]

60. Why was a 14 year old out at 1am???????? WTH?

Ok not ready to jump on the "this is like Trayvon" bandwagon

I hope the young man survives but I wanna know why was he out at 1:45am

Where were his parents?

Why did he climb a fence to gaon access to private property.

It's dark how do we knowthe shooter knew it was a Black person in his yard? Maybe all he saw was a stanger who just jumped the fence.


This is another sad story as are all shootings no matter the victims shade.

And one question for the shooter. If he went to all the trouble to install security cameras why didn't he install motion sensing lights?

Did he ask who is it? or announce he had a gun?

Even Police I have to announce who they are and give the person a chance to surrender.

Those are my immediate question, before I raose my blackness up into a fury.

I really hope this young survives and fully recovers.

[Pelican]

71. Poor parenting....

On a sperate note I can't think of a legitimate reason to be hopping fences in the dark at 1:45 am.

If he needed help then he should have approached the front door and knocked...

[BainsBane]

87. There is a great deal of poor parenting

Take for example parents who raise children who grow up to thinking killing unarmed children is acceptable.

[Pelican]

116. Are you under the mistaken impression...

... that you need a weapon to kill or seriously harm someone?

That could explain quite a bit...

[Hoyt]

144. Those who are into guns, support Zimmerman, etc., explain quite a bit as well.

[BainsBane]

378. I'm under the very real understanding of homicide statistics

and that guns are the most common method of homicide. But by all means, continue to indulge in fantastical scenarios that that man could have killed the boy with Polonium or something else. Don't let reality influence your thought process.

The problem is that without a gun, a paranoid weakling would have to walk up to a child and confront him directly rather than killing from a distance. And if there is any one constant about gun killers, especially the ones like Zimmy and this guy who kill children, is they are unmitigated cowards. Imagine if that guy who killed the chihuahua would have had to deal with him without a gun? God forbid. However could a grown gun nut handle a 6 lb dog?

[Hoyt]

242. Exactly, probably gave the shooter a gun at age 7, and took him to range to practice shooting

targets that resemble humans.

[penultimate]

198. I had decent parents, but I remember sneaking out in the middle of the night

when I was around that age. I wouldn't say being out in the middle of the night means the kid was subject to bad parenting. Now, if he was breaking into peoples' homes, that's a different story...

[Pelican]

258. Pretty much...

There is a difference between being a teenager and thinking its "cool" to ride up and down the street on your BMX until late at night.

It's stupid but then most teenagers are...

Where he crosses the line is when he leaves his bike outside and starts hopping tall pointy fences at 1:45 am.

[pnwmom]

127. I'm thinking that the shooter did not announce he had a gun.

Because if he HAD, I bet the kid would have beat it out of there.

[Flatulo]

74. Another 'shoot first' nut. He's in deep doodoo. There is no justification for shooting

at a trespasser, or even a vandal, if that were the case. No justification for shooting even if it were a thief trying to break into a vehicle.

The only justification for shooting is in the case of imminent, certain risk of death or grave bodily harm. See no evidence of that here.

[defacto7]

102. Stuff...

It's all over stuff. What is stuff worth? Things, possessions.... then there's life way down the list somewhere....

Stupid greedy priorities. Who needs stuff enough to kill for it? Who needs stuff enough to fear for the loss of it?

Fuck the stuff. Face life head on and take a chance for reconciliation and understanding. Stuff is worth nothing.

[BainsBane]

140. I can't wrap my head around that either

Nothing I own is worth taking a human life.

[Flatulo]

324. Theft should be punished, but community service seems about right to me.

I can't see incarcerating some kid for taking my shitty car for a joyride.

We're so fucking stupid at times that it boggles my mind.

[oneshooter]

391. Even your own life? n/t

[BainsBane]

392. What life?

The kid was on the guy's lawn. Get a grip. A 14 year old black teenager can't kill just by looking at someone. He didn't have a gun.

[BainsBane]

394. Human life is not "stuff," nor is it a possession.

[oneshooter]

402. So you are saying that you would kill to protect your own life? n/t

[BainsBane]

417. I can't say what I would do, having never been in such a situation

but I see no problem with someone defending his or herself against an actual life threatening attack, and neither does the law. Clearly the police didn't see the case this way or the wouldn't have charged the shooter with attempted murder.

[oneshooter]

460. Pray you never get yourself in such a siuation.

One where either yourself or someone else is in danger.

[BainsBane]

461. Chances of that are very remote

As a woman, the primary risk to me is rape, and most rapes occur by someone the victim knows. Over the years, I've learned better how to avoid those situations. The fact I'm no longer young also makes me less of a target.

Since I'm no longer married, chances of a life threatening situation are reduced dramatically.

[Deuce]

112. Bookmarked...

[exboyfil]

114. This one seems morally unjustified

but what about this one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/melinda-herman-mom-who-shot-intruder_n_2443920.html

You should not kill someone over some stuff, but what would you do if you were stolen from on a regular basis with no meaningful action from the police.

In addition the owner was alerted by his dog. Did he think his dog was in danger?

At night you really can't tell if someone is 14 years old.

If I had an intruder in my house I would gather my family and dogs in my upstairs bedroom and wait for the calvary to arrive, but if I could not gather all my family members together I would be more aggressive about confronting the intruder.

[HiPointDem]

118. this guy didn't have an upstairs bedroom. those houses are tiny, shotgun type houses. another

reason a person might shoot first, since there's nowhere to run or hide if the trespasser means to enter your house.

[exboyfil]

120. Good point

I just wonder if shouting would have been sufficient to diffuse the situation. On the other hand it is difficult to give up the element of surprise when facing an intruder. Jumping a fence especially 1:00 am at night is being an intruder. Was he recovering his lost baseball at the time (jumped a few fences as a kid to get my baseball)? Seems more likely that he was looking to steal or vandalize something or worse.

[HiPointDem]

121. i dunno. i just don't think this is anything like the trayvon martin case, however hard the

op tries to make it so.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

166. ^^^^^ ^^^^^

[chillfactor]

125. you do not KNOW the teenager was intent on entering the house....

that is an assumption on your part..all the shooter had to do was lock the doors and call the police...there was NO REASON to shot the teenager...NONE at all..and the police did not think so either...

[HiPointDem]

129. you're confused, as i am not arguing there was a reason to shoot. i *am* arguing there was

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 06:12 AM - Edit history (1)

a reason for fear. it's the kind of situation that i can understand how someone might err on the side of fear (which i can't see at all in the martin case)

which would be incidents like this a block away in the same neighborhood:

Lying in his bed at Interim LSU Public Hospital, a 40-year-old man smiled Thursday upon hearing that two of the three juveniles believed to have crushed his skull with wine bottles 11 days earlier were in custody. "Woo hoo," he joked, before turning serious. "They're so young, that's what's messed up."

After a mother recognized her son as one of three assailants seen beating the victim in a surveillance video shown on local media this week, she and another parent brought 16-year-old Brian Ellis and an unnamed 15-year-old to the New Orleans Police Department's juvenile division around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, Detective Michael Flores said.

Before allegedly attacking the 40-year-old man with wine bottles as he was walking at about 4:45 a.m. near the corner of Chartres and Mandeville streets in Faubourg Marigny, the trio is also believed to have beaten and tried to rob another victim, a man in his late 30s, Flores told a Thursday afternoon news conference.

Surveillance footage shows three young men striking the victim in the head with glass wine bottles, even as he lies immobile on the ground. One of the suspects leaves at one point, then returns to kick the victim in the head. The suspects left without even trying to rob him, the man said. "That surprised the hell out of me," he said. In his pockets, he had a cell phone, $300 in cash and cigarettes. "It doesn't make no sense."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/from_hospital_bed_marigny_bott.html

[TorchTheWitch]

150. there's a world of difference between fear and the fear of

imminent death or great bodily harm. Sure, pretty much anyone would be fearful if they saw a stranger hop their fence into their yard, but certainly not in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, and it is the latter that is the ONLY justifiable reason to shoot. If you're in your house with a door between you and the trespasser there is no reason to fear death or great bodily harm. BEFORE shooting in such a situation you first let the person know that you see them, you're calling the police and you're armed. If they then try to bust into your house there STILL isn't reason to fear imminent death or great bodily harm. If they bust into your house, and come after you especially with a weapon THEN you're justified to shoot.

In this case, there was no justification to fear imminent death or great bodily harm. The shooter was in his house, had no idea why the person hopped their fence and was in their yard, and the kid was not doing anything more threatening at the time he shot him - he was just standing next to the guy's car. He also gave no warning to the person that he knew they were there and that he was armed. Had he done so the kid would have likely freaked out and hopped back over the fence and ran away.

[HiPointDem]

309. you can argue the legalities of it all you like. i'm saying, when you are in that kind of environ-

ment, you are less likely to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[TorchTheWitch]

349. then such a person should NEVER own a gun

If they can't be trusted to not go off trigger happy then fuck 'em. They're too fucked in the head to have a gun. PLENTY of people live in bad neighborhoods, but they don't go blasting away willy nilly because they're so damn paranoid that they aren't willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they're perfectly safe from them inside their house and there's other REASONABLE things to do instead of whipping out a gun and go plinking away at anyone they feel like just because they get the willies.

We aren't just talking legalities here, it's common fucking sense not to mention morally correct. And if someone doesn't have the plain old common sense to not shoot someone that is in no way threatening them they have no business whatsoever owning or having access to a gun. And if they can't understand that responding to a kid that hops their fence into their yard and poses not one single bit of imminent threat to their person or to that of another person that shooting them is grossly immoral without doing anything else first like tell them you see them, you're calling the cops, you're armed and allowing them the opportunity to stand down they aren't even human. They can wall themselves into a closet and have a shrink come and pick their paranoid brains if they're that terrified of the environment they live in. Jesus, someone that paranoid shouldn't be allowed in public even without a gun... who knows what other weapon they might use to try and kill someone that poses no threat to them whatsoever just because they're that paranoid.

Fuck these asinine excuses for shooting someone. It's sick.

[HiPointDem]

352. not you, though.

[TorchTheWitch]

366. seeing as I don't own a gun that's hardly a rational response

I've never even touched a gun in my entire life. Anyone I know that has one is not allowed to bring one into my home. I'm far more worried about a gun on me or in my home would be turned against me rather than my shooting it myself to save my own life.

But that said, since I AM rational about gun use I wouldn't be the type of person who shouldn't own one since I'd never use it unless there was a direct threat to my life or great bodily harm. Even then I'm not all together sure I could shoot someone. I know I'd hesitate, and that's what scares me about a gun in my own hand being turned against me.

I have no problem whatsoever with other people owning guns so long as they use and store them responsibly. And anyone that ever points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger had BETTER have an actual reasonable and imminent fear of their life or great bodily harm being done to them or another. A gun is the LAST thing one relies on to protect themselves or another.

So, now, just what the hell is your point?

[pintobean]

146. "Coulter's family acknowledged the teen's history of burglary arrests"

It looks like the story has been updated with additional facts. A witness has a story that doesn't match the shooter's.

It seems the kid is a thief, but never used guns. I don't think anyone should be allowed to shoot a thief, unless they come into your home. This story really stinks, but it's not another Trayvon Martin story.

Earlier in the evening, a different neighbor said the teen in the blue tank top had been biking around the area around 8 p.m. and the neighbor believed he was looking at different houses.

"I thought about calling the cops, but the last thing I want to do is racially profile a little kid who's just biking," said the neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The neighbor and Landry are white; the two teens are black.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[Inkfreak]

148. Every shooting is not like the Zimmerman/Martin case.

And to say so is a disservice to Trayvon.

[ceonupe]

152. Hate to say this

But if the teen was in his back yard behind the gate behind the house this guy will walk.

U can't trespass someone property and lay in wait. In fact if I came out to my back and found someone who does not belong by my car I would deploy my gun and if they advanced towards me or threatens me I would drop them were they stood.

No reason for a person to be in the backyard of someone else and if they threatened me I would shoot.

We need more details because right now I don't see this ending in conviction

[Hoyt]

153. So you support shooting a kid riding a bicycle in the head over easily replaceable property?

[pintobean]

156. Did he jump the fence on his bike, Hoyt?

I agree that the kid shouldn't have been shot, but it's as if you didn't even read the story.

[Hoyt]

162. I did read the article, and it said some kids were seen on their bikes.

Maybe you are one that should read a little closer.

From article: "Charles Hazouri, a friend who owns property near the 700 block of Mandeville Street, where the shooting happened, said his surveillance cameras captured two juveniles riding BMX bikes up and down Mandeville and Dauphine streets around 1:44 a.m. One of the teens was wearing a blue tank top with white stripes; the other was wearing a light-colored T-shirt, Hazouri said."


Guns aren't a good mix for folks who can't even get facts straight while sitting on their rear, drinking coffee and surfing the internet.

[pintobean]

167. Yeah, I just spilled my coffee and shot my monitor.

You appear to be trying to imply that the kid was on his bike when he was shot. It's quite clear that he wasn't.

[Hoyt]

175. No, I am saying they were bicycling (so young kids) and one got off and jumped over a fence.

You seem to imply that it's OK to shoot an unarmed kid at 30 feet, because you have a gun and can.

[pintobean]

188. I've stated that I don't think it was a justified shooting.

Pay attention, Hoyt. Don't let your prejudiced opinions interfere with facts.
I don't know why the kid's mode of transportation or age really matter all that much. Several of your posts look like you're trying to put the kid on the bike when he was shot.

[Hoyt]

190. Nope, my posts are simply saying these are young folks who ride bikes, not hardened criminals.

It's hard to justify shooting a kid who road a bicycle to rummage through stuff in your yard, especially when it was apparently at 30 feet.

[pintobean]

197. It looks more like back-peddling

after reality finally sunk in.

[HolyMoley]

227. Because criminals never use bicycles as a mode of transportation.

"Bicycles As Getaway Vehicles

Not long ago, I became aware of a new trend in bicycle use. This use of bicycles allows a rider to cause harm with a bike instead of the usual good bicycles are known for. I am talking about criminals using bikes in the commission of crimes.

Once in a while the media reports on a case where a criminal used a bike to either travel to or away from the scene of a crime. Such reporting has been intermittent, making the activity seem rare. However, one particular report in the Washington Post, which didn’t garner much attention at the time of publication, compiled a list of crimes committed in the Washington area.

They reported the following:

“In recent weeks, a number of robberies on city streets have been reported in which thieves approach and flee on two wheels. A robbery reported Sunday was only the latest. The incident, which police described as a robbery by force and violence, occurred about 4 a.m. in the unit block of New York Avenue NE. At least one robber in a group of four or five was said to have headed away on a bike.

Earlier this year, bikes were used in two notable incidents. In one, a man on a bicycle committed a sexual assault in the Dupont Circle area. In the other, a man on a city Bikeshare bike struck a pedestrian in the face and pedaled off with her iPhone.

Other incidents in which bikes were used in crimes attracted less attention, but they seem to occur with some regularity.”


To play devil’s advocate, when traveling to the scene of a crime, bikes are easier to park. They are more maneuverable than cars and they can be ridden into areas where cars can’t fit and aren’t allowed to drive. Bikes draw less attention from passers-by. And they are virtually silent. These characteristics provide more options for escape and make it easier to go undetected in a crowd.

Criminals are limited in the direction they can drive when using a getaway car to escape the scene of a crime. Planning a motor vehicle getaway route can be difficult. Traffic patterns can’t be predicted. Patrolling police car positions can’t be anticipated. And, after committing to a particular route, alternative routes are few and far between.

Clearly, bikes offer criminals many advantages over cars. In addition to the advantages mentioned above, bikes are especially useful in crimes today because of the novelty involved in using them this way. Witnesses don’t normally associate bikes with crimes. Part of the reason is that non-cyclists are often unaware of how fast bikes can go.

http://isolatecyclist.bostonbiker.org/2012/09/24/bicycles-as-getaway-vehicles/

I wonder if he was just in the process of turning his life around?

Coulter's family acknowledged the teen's history of burglary arrests but said he had never used a gun.

Marshall Coulter, who had been on medication for attention deficit hyperactive disorder, was awaiting trial for "stealing stuff," his brother said.

"He would steal -- he was a professional thief, sure," David Coulter said. "But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he'll ever pick up a gun, he'll be your friend first

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html

He also looks a lot older than his age from this photo.

[Hoyt]

267. Thanks, HolyMoley, I'm sure folks in your favorite group -- the gungeon -- will agree with you.

I don't.

[HiPointDem]

340. I've never been to the gungeon. I live in a small, 90% white town with a high crime rate, mostly

committed by whites. Bikes are the favored vehicle of tweakers crusing for stuff to steal, drug dealers making deliveries, etc. Easier to hide, cut through housing, woods, etc. to get away from anyone -- like the police -- who are following. Plus tweakers often have their licenses suspended or use up all their money for drugs, so don't have cars or licenses. And yeah, a lot of tweakers are violent, or will resort to violence if challenged.

[pipi_k]

262. Someone doesn't have to be

a "hardened criminal" to be a thief or potential murderer or rapist.

People who become hardened criminals obviously started somewhere.


Oh, and the young people on bikes thing...truly funny! Like how a person looks is an indicator of his criminal intent or not...

I had a tag/yard sale one time that attracted a bunch of people.

The only ones who stole something?

An elderly couple who walked off with a clock and weather station/barometer set without bothering to pay.

Yeah...someone's sweet old grandma and grandpa. Thieves.

They were allowed to escape with their booty because it just wasn't worth the trouble to argue with/embarrass them.

[HiPointDem]

336. i don't think you understand the situation. the kid was in the 'yard' a few feet from the back

door of the house. he had to jump this fence to get in. it's a very small property; the back door is under that low red roofline you can just see behind the bush.



the shooter shot from the front door area, outside the gate where the steps are.

[Hoyt]

345. So shooter was in no danger. I get it completely.

Police will sort it out.

[HiPointDem]

354. glad you know exactly how it was.

[ceonupe]

169. Hoyt it's been updated

The teen left his friend for a look out.

The teen left his bike on the street when he jumped the fence. The teen has a history of burglar convictions (this is new information posted today by the kids family)

The castle doctrine applies this wont make it to trial.

Hopefully the kid does not die and can change his life around.

This case has little to do with the travon case other than it is a black teen and involves a gun. Travon was not a convicted robber and was not on private property he had no reason to be on. Trayvon was in his community and had very right to be there. The kid in this story had ZERO right to be were he was and was actively engaged in a crime of trespassing and possibly conspiracy to commit other crimes.

[Hoyt]

172. I don't compare it to Trayvon's murder. In this case, the bicycling kid was shot at 30 feet.

Agree kid should not have been in yard, but you can't justify shooting someone in the head at 30 feet just because they might steal some property that is of questionable value, since it was outside. Well, apparently you can justify it, probably for same reasons you support Zimmerman.

[ceonupe]

191. Please stop with the bicycling kid theme

He was a criminal when he was shot not a bike package delivery man.

U use the bike meme to make the criminal kid look more innocent.

Not saying he deserved to be shot but also not saying shooting him was a crime.

[Hoyt]

196. Bicycle proves to me he was not a hardened criminal. But, you guys will back the shooter

even if it is shown kid was 30 feet away because he was running.

[penultimate]

203. Actually, riding a bike just means he didn't have access to a car

I'm not saying the shooter was right, but I don't think many people will agree with you that if someone is riding a bike, it means there is a lesser chance of them being a criminal.

That being said, I think the real question is if someone has the right to kill someone just because they are stealing their property. Although, one might also say the home owner had no idea what the intruder's intent was, and that his options were to wait to see if the intruder attacked.

My opinion is that, in this case, the guy probably should have stayed in his home with the doors locked, turned on backyard lights, and contacted the police. If the kid tried to enter his home, then he would have been justified in shooting him.

[pipi_k]

271. Well, then I guess...

You have never seen on some of those police shows where they set up a sting using what appears to be an abandoned bicycle on a city sidewalk.

I've seen lots of them where a kid on a bike will check out the surroundings for a bit, then ride off on his own bike, trailing the "abandoned" bike behind him.

When caught, the usual answer is, "I was returning it to the guy who left it there". Or something equally stupid.

Yeah. Criminals don't ride bikes.

[Hoyt]

277. Do you think police should shoot those thieves?

I also saw video below here the other day, where a chained bike was put in a park. Then some white kid goes up and starts trying to cut the lock, folks just walk by. Then, a pretty white girl tries to cut chain -- old white guys run up to help. Then, a black kid tries to cut the lock, and all the white folks go crazy, calling police, confronting kid, etc.

[pipi_k]

346. I think maybe

that has more to do with men and pretty girls than young men of any color.

Some men will literally knock themselves out to impress a pretty girl.

Do you really believe that an overweight, middle-aged white woman would get that sort of "help"?

Come on, now...

[Hoyt]

350. She might be ignored, unless of course she's black/brown. Then the swat team would be summoned.

[HiPointDem]

335. it says more than that.

Hazouri said his video, which he gave to NOPD detectives, shows the two teens talking in the middle of Mandeville Street outside of Landry's house. The video then shows the teen in the light-colored T-shirt walk his bike across Mandeville toward Landry's house. Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.

[Crepuscular]

173. Um...

the "kid" was not riding a bicycle, his bicycle was on the other side of the tall, spiked, fence that the "kid" had climbed over while illegally enter the guys yard.

What easily replaceable property was the "kid" stealing?

This "kid" was described as a "professional thief" by his own family and was standing trial for previous crimes. The incident occurred at 2:00 in the morning. A homeowner is alerted to someone on his property by his dog barking. Despite a barking dog, the "kid" in question did not immediately flee, he remained in the yard long enough for the homeowner to come out and confront him. This occurred in a high crime neighborhood, where an armed home invasion had occurred just down the street just a few hours before and where three "kids" brutally beat an old man in a street attack the previous week.



Whether the shooting will be ruled justified remains to be seen but given the evidence that has been made public so far, it's pretty hard to see how the state is going to get a conviction on this one.

[Hoyt]

178. The kid rode a bike to the house, he doesn't sound all that scary to me.

But then, I'm not into shooting people over a little bit of property in my yard.

[Crepuscular]

189. The

kid rode a bike to the house...before he climbed over a tall, locked steel gate at 2:00 in the morning in a high crime area. Next time you are confronted by a stranger on your property at 2:00 in the morning, who is there illegally and who has chosen not to flee after the barking dog alerted you to his presence, then you may be in a position to judge the "scariness" of the individual. Hope it turns out well for you.

[Hoyt]

194. A kid outside, can take anything they want -- and unlike you, I would not even think of shooting

them at 30 feet over some GD property.

[Crepuscular]

286. Again,

what property was he stealing? You have twice made the claim that the shooting occurred simply over some property that was being stolen by the yute, so what property are we talking about?

In order to get inside the house, a perp has to first jump the fence and transit the yard, right? So why the assumption that the yute had no intention of entering the house in question? Earlier the same day there was an armed home invasion on the same block, in that case would the homeowner been justified in shooting the armed individual who entered their home in your opinion? Or is there never a justification to defend ones home and family with lethal means?

[Hoyt]

291. We'll find out when facts are released. Until then, I'm not going on auto support for shooter.

If the kid was breaking down door, that's different. If kid had tools to break into house, that's different. If kid had a gun, that's different. If kid, came at shooter, that's different. I don't see any of that, and it appears we are getting some reports from the usual right wing sites that jump to defend these type shootings.

[krispos42]

157. Details

<snip>

Merritt Landry, 33, (pictured to the right) fired one shot at the teen when he saw him in his front yard on Mandeville Street in the Marigny around 2 a.m., according to the NOPD. Crime lab technicians located a single spent casing on the scene.

<snip>

A neighbor with surveillance cameras said the teen jumped the homeowner's fence before being shot in the head.

Charles Hazouri, a neighbor and friend of the Landry who says his surveillance video shows the teen jumping the fence, said Landry felt threatened.

"Merrit told his family that he had said, 'Freeze,' and it looked like the guy turned at him -- like he had his hand on his hip. But who knows?" Hazouri said.

<more>

http://www.wwltv.com/news/crime/Marigny-Shooting-217076851.html

This occurred at 2 o'clock in the morning, and the yard is tiny, at least the one in the video accompanying the article. If the kid jumped the guy's fence, he was pretty much already up to the house.

[pintobean]

160. More details.

According to an NOPD arrest warrant, Landry shot Coulter from 30 feet away, evidenced by the distance between the blood found on the ground and the single bullet casing outside Landry's house in the 700 block of Mandeville Street.

Landry told police that he approached the boy from his front yard, near his vehicle. As he grew closer, he said, the boy made a "move, as if to reach for something" -- possibly a weapon -- so Landry shot him, the warrant states.

NOPD Detective Nicholas Williams spoke with an unidentified witness who gave an account that differed from Landry's, though the detective did not specify how. Williams wrote in the warrant that Coulter was not trying to enter Landry's house and did not pose an "imminent threat" to Landry.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[Hoyt]

164. 30 feet. Now that's not a "big" threat, when the bicycling kid is unarmed, and you are.

Did he shoot him in the front of the head, or the back? Not that it really matters at 30 feet, because it's unjustified except in the minds of gun crowd who regularly train to shoot people.

If new facts arise, it might be different.

[ceonupe]

171. More has come out

The witness police talked to turns out to be te kids friend who was there. The same friend who was talking to the shot kid right before he moved to be the look out and the other kid jumped the fence.

At the time of initial area at police did not know about the video.

Expect changes and the shooter to be released next week.

[Hoyt]

174. Hopefully, NO law enforcement will not release man who shot kid at 30 feet over replaceabl property.

I know you would like to see it a justifiable shoot, but so far doesn't sound like it to me.

[ceonupe]

184. They are already making preparation

The witness the police interviewed turns out to be the coconspiritor. At the time of the arrest the police did not know the incident was on video.

The witness lied


The family us come out now and has shared more details about the shoot kid and admits he was troubled and had robber convictions.

The police now have a fuller picture with the video before the shooting that directly contradicts the story told to them by the "witness".


This is moving fast shooter will be out of jail by end of week either on low bail or charges dropped.

[pintobean]

204. Where are you getting this info?

You need to provide a link.

[Hoyt]

215. The usual suspect sources, I'm sure free republic, stormfront, etc., are burning up the internet

to rationalize the shooting of another unarmed black kid, and this one apparently at 30 feet.

[Lurker Deluxe]

201. By who?

Who is going to replace that property?

You?

What is "replaceable property"?

Is your car replaceable? Can I have it?

[Hoyt]

220. Give me a break, you support shooting an unarmed kid at 30 feet over something left outside in

a high crime area. Personally, I value human life more than crap in my yard, and damn sure wouldn't shoot someone at 30 feet just over it?

[NOLALady]

400. Insurance?

[uponit7771]

495. MORE PROOF that DU has been overun by fudr!! Kill someone over property!?!! REALLY?!

[uponit7771]

494. Link and quote the kid being the "look out" just because they're black doesn't mean they were trying

...to commit a crime

regards

[krispos42]

420. I can't take sides on this story yet

Not enough solid information.

But there is a solid foundation we need in order to have informed debate.


If this took place on private property, SYG laws do not apply, as they are contingent on people being in PUBLIC, not on private, land.

The laws governing this case are different.



The circumstances are trying... tiny yard, close range, unknown people on your yard at 2am. The lighting was almost certainly a major factor.

[Hoyt]

163. Yep, shoot a kid riding a bicycle over property and likely petty theft.

If kid had gone inside, well he gets what he gets. Although, I'd have a hard time shooting someone simply for stealing a tv, dvr or something. Now, they come near my family . . . . . .

[ceonupe]

176. Are u intentionally lying?

The kid was not riding his bik when shot.

He left his bike on the street and jumped a fence and was shot after the dog alerted the owner to him being behind the gate.

Why the need to lie about the facts. If you think he should not have been shot just say that but to low and whitewash you are being intentionally dishonest and close to trolling.

[Hoyt]

182. He road the bike to the house, that shows the kid is not some hardened criminal to be shot

in the head at 30 feet over possible loss of property worth so little that it is left outside.

I have never been afraid of kids who ride bicycles, or even adults for that matter. Then again, I'm not into guns and training to shoot people.

[ceonupe]

187. The fact he road a bike to a possible crime means what now?

So would it matte if he walked road a motorcycle or


I understand your desire to use the imagey of a boy riding a bike to downplay what is obvious to even his family (they now say he was know to rob people /homes).

The bike is actually important because it shows he left it on te street whil he jumped the fence to comit a crime. (Trespassing attempted robbery/home invasion)

This kid is no angle and while it suck he got shot he chose to comit a crime in an attempt to comit another crime aginst a persons home.

Unless more detials come out I'm sorry this man won't be convicted.

Like I said hopefully this kid survives and choses a better career path than robbing people (his own family says he was a robber)

[Hoyt]

249. We've yet to find if the shooter was an angle either. I know to gun cultists he is, but . . . . . .

[ceonupe]

253. but we know for a fact this teen was a robber

his own family attempting to get ahead of the media story admits it. in fact not only was he convicted he was waiting to face trail for another one of his robberies.


not saying he deserves to die but I am saying this was no innocent kid minding his business riding his bike down the street when and "evil" gun owner who "may" be a racists stopped him and shot him.


nothing the shooter did cause him to meet with his friend developed a plan leave his bike jump the fence at almost 2 am of a house they have no reason to be at.

like I said this kid was in the act of committing a crime (maybe more than one crime as conspiracy is a crime as well)

making this about black males or racism is a disservice to honest non criminal black kids. This kid was in the wrong hopefull he does not die and can turn his life around.

[pintobean]

269. Again, no link.

in fact not only was he convicted he was waiting to face trail for another one of his robberies

Where are you getting this stuff?
You need to provide a source or you're just another person making shit up. The kid is a juvenile. Their records are sealed.

[ceonupe]

273. parents have gone to the local media

the link is further up thread. they voluntarily admit he has criminal record and is scheduled to go to trial for a robbery.

The nebihoor with video was not contacted by police for the video until after the arrest.

[pintobean]

285. Provide the link

or the post number that contains it. I haven't seen it and I'm not going on a wild goose chase. You are the only person in this thread who is claiming these things.

[ceonupe]

308. link

Coulter's family acknowledged the teen's history of burglary arrests but said he had never used a gun.

NOLA local newspaper


also note the arrest happened before police got the video

[pintobean]

317. It says nothing about convictions or awaiting trial.

You also claimed the witness was the other kid and that the video proved the witness to be a liar. You never linked to anything for that either. Please stop stating things as fact if you're just pulling them from your backside.

[B2G]

274. Link here:

"Coulter's family acknowledged the teen's history of burglary arrests but said he had never used a gun."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[pintobean]

280. Arrested does not mean convicted.

I was the first person to post that link this morning, and I quoted that same portion. This guy keeps making claims that are not in the articles.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

342. I think the poster is referring to this;

"Coulter is the seventh of eight children. Coulter's 23-year-old brother, David Coulter, said he had largely raised the children after their father died three years ago of stomach cancer. David said he and his mother did his best to keep Marshall out of trouble.

Marshall Coulter, who had been on medication for attention deficit hyperactive disorder, was awaiting trial for "stealing stuff," his brother said.

"He would steal -- he was a professional thief, sure," David Coulter said. "But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he'll ever pick up a gun, he'll be your friend first".

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[gollygee]

270. It means he couldn't have been planning much of a robbery

because there is only so much you can carry while you're riding a bike.

[ceonupe]

306. a laptop goes for about $50 on the street

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

tablets for about $40
real watches much more
real jewelry much more
and if the homeowner does not practice safe gun practices and leaves a gun not locked up when they aren't home (maybe the kids thought no one was home) they could get a gun or 2 (ultimate score)

getting a gun is like leveling up. now you can commit more crime, protect your self from other crooks and even more craziness.


also how would the home owner know the kid left his bike on the street when he jumped the fence and laid in wait.

[cali]

206. are you under some interesting delusion that the act of riding a bike

means someone can't possibly be engaged in criminal activity? How unusual.

And how did the shooter (who I agree, from what I know, was NOT justified in shooting) know the kid was riding a bike? He couldn't see that the kid had left his bike in the road- not that that's relevant/

I'm not into guns either but I do put a lot of weight on critical thinking- something utterly absent from your posts in this thread.

Please not my tag line.

[pintobean]

208. "in this thread"

[Hoyt]

209. Critical thinking? Shooting an unarmed kid at 30 feet ain't critical thinking.

I'm merely responding to gun lovers -- who also were big Zman supporters -- because they are always looking for ways to justify more guns in more places and the shooting of anyone, particularly black/brown folks.

If you like that kind of crud, carry on.

[cali]

217. yes, hon, critical thinking. Let me add reading comprehension

something else you seem woefully in need of. What part of this escaped your notice?


And how did the shooter (who I agree, from what I know, was NOT justified in shooting)

I have no doubt that you'll carry on with the shite that you've laced this thread with.

[Hoyt]

224. "Critical thinking? You didn't even finish your bolded sentence.

Shooting someone at 30 feet is callous, period.

As long as gun nuts and Zman supporters post in support of this apparently wanton killer -- based upon what we know -- I'll be posting.

[cali]

233. uh, I don't think you understand what critical think is, dear

I bolded the pertinent part of a sentence in my previous post in order to point out your shit inference that I was siding with the shooter. Shooting someone at 30 feet is certainly not callous period- though it looks to have been just that in this case. Another giant fail for you on the critical thinking front. Obviously there are times when shooting someone at 30 feet is not callous- like when someone is attacked or in defense of someone who is in imminent danger. Sad, that I actually have to explain that.

I think our little tete a tete is done.

ta ta and all that.

[Hoyt]

248. Apparently, our shooter wasn't in imminent danger, or under attack. So much for critical thinkin.

My guess is that our shooter is like many right wingers -- black/brown folks are scary and dangerous to them -- so blasting away like it is a zombie is OK.

[pintobean]

251. There it is!

It was just a matter of time - the bigotry angle.

[Duckhunter935]

185. thank you

Hoyt is really going over the deep end trying to justify his position and is now not even telling the truth anymore. Hard to take anything he says seriously.

[pintobean]

193. The bigotry accusations are yet to fly. nt

[Hoyt]

213. Saw enough of that in the Zman case. And here you guys are again.

[pintobean]

221. Said.

You said that enough in threads about the Zman case.

[Hoyt]

212. Says the man with a reference to guns in his user name on DU. Haven't seen you around to

gloat about Zman walking after shooting unarmed black kid. Here's another chance.

[ceonupe]

228. says the guy who's anti gun stace clouds his ability to objectively look

at the facts of individual cases instead of attempting to package them to fit their political beliefs.


Hoyt we know you are anti gun. your anti gun position is clear but you often when caught manipulating facts jump to trashing the other person.

you constantly on this thread want to present the picture of tis kid riding his bike down the street minding his business committing no crimes and he was shot.

We all understand phrasing and positioning of arguments. You do this very often on topics abut guns.

Don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

this case has very little to do with the TM case. one major difference is this kid was committing a crime at the time he was shot. ( not saying he deserved to be shot) the time was not at 7pm like the TM case but 1:45 am and it was not on community property b ut in someone's locked back yard with his friend functioning as lookout.

another difference is this kid is a convicted theft who is also awaiting trial on other robberies. and most importantly he conspired with his friend left his bike jumped a fence and did not flee when the dogs barked. Ultimately he was shot.

Many people believe there could have been more the arrested man could have done besides shoot the kid but you go full bore lie about the known facts to sway opinion. This kid was up to no good and maybe he did not deserve to be shoot for his crimes it does not mean it was illegal for him to be shot.

Like I said wait till the beginning of the week and you will see.

this thread also is taking a huge stinking crap on Trayvon's grave. Trayvon was not a convicted robber breaking/trespassing into private property at 1:45am with a friend as a lookout.

[Hoyt]

231. Clearly the kid was up to no good, but shooting him at 30 feet when he is not a hardened

criminal ready to shoot a home owner is wrong.

I agree completely, this is not a Trayvon Martin case. That's why I didn't respond to that part, only to those coming here to support the shooter. The same gun lovers who supported Zman are here supporting this guy. Apparently, there is some similarity in your minds. So, what is it?

[pintobean]

247. Don't confuse those of us who stick to the facts

with supporters of either shooter. You, and others, keep doing that.

[ceonupe]

259. just so you know polce have claified the 30 ft claim

they now say the boy was found 30 feet from the door. the lot is not even 30 foot wide.

like I said wait till next week you may have a different take on this case. Now the police have video which they did not have a t time of arrest. also the police no know the "witness" was not telling the whole truth.

and the family has outsde PR help and are trying to get ahead of the story by pre releasing the bad info on their shot kid in an attempt to get it out there before the defense uses it to paint their kid as the criminal he is and was.

[pipi_k]

299. How is anyone supposed to know

beforehand whether or not a suspicious person is a hardened criminal?

Oh, yeah...

hardened criminals don't ride bikes...

[Hoyt]

301. If they are at 30 feet, unarmed, a kid, poking around outside, etc., they aren't acting like a home

invader. But hey, if you can claim you "was scared of the boogeyman," shoot.

[Lurker Deluxe]

313. Just so I know for sure

What exactly do home invaders do before they actually bust down the door?

Do they have a hunch on their back?

Drag one foot behind them when they walk?

Do they have a certain feature to them?

How do you tell that someone is about to rape or kill?

[pipi_k]

325. It's nearly

2 AM

Dark. Someone is lurking around in my yard. I can't see the person's face, and...more importantly...I don't know what is in that person's mind.

A person could only intend to rob a garage, but, finding nothing of value, get pissed off or desperate and decide to break into the home.

Where he may just take what he wants, leaving quickly...

or, becoming afraid when the homeowner(s) can identify him, decide to kill his witness(es).

You ever (again) see one of those police shows where someone is stopped for a traffic ticket and the person takes off, initiating a police pursuit, crashing into parked cars, being pulled over and assaulting the arresting officer? All because he was maybe driving without his license or something equally minor. Now he's very stupidly compounded his problem.

You can't ever just assume that someone rooting around in your yard is NOT going to do the unexpected.

I'm not saying it's OK to shoot them without reason (i.e. fear of bodily harm).

But it's just incredibly naive (not to mention dangerous) to assume that people won't do something you don't expect.

[Hoyt]

326. Like poster above said, there was enough light to shoot h in head at a distance.

If you are inside with a gun at ready, the minute they try to break in, you pretty much have them.

[pipi_k]

343. You know...

we're all sitting here safely posting from our computers going on about what the shooter could have done...should have done...etc., without the slightest idea of how it must feel to be frightened by someone who obviously wasn't scared off by a barking dog. I know I can't say for sure what I would do in a situation like that.

Like I said somewhere else, it's entirely possible the shooter really didn't intend to go for the head. I've done pretty much the same thing when shooting targets out in the yard with my Daisy bb pistol. I aim for a lower point (corresponding to a shoulder or maybe a leg) and end up getting a higher point (corresponding to a head).

And, no...even if they break in, you "don't pretty much have them". Not in my state, anyway, as far as I know. There is a list of requirements that must be met, and it's not a black and white situation, by any means.

http://www.homeinvasionnews.com/can-i-shoot-a-home-invader/

[Vattel]

361. One minor disagreement

Ceonupe: "this case has very little to do with the TM case. one major difference is this kid was committing a crime at the time he was shot. ( not saying he deserved to be shot)"

If Martin assaulted Zimmerman and was beating him up when he was shot, then he was committing a crime when he was shot. (not saying that, if he was committing a crime, he deserved to be shot)

Of course, no one except Zimmerman knows for sure whether Zimmerman was the victim of a crime.

[krispos42]

419. I was going to call you on this...

...but others have done the job very well.

[RedCappedBandit]

168. Another pathetic cowardly weakling with a gun.

[Just Saying]

186. The guy might be trigger happy

But I don't think this is a Trayvon Martin incident.

[Lurker Deluxe]

199. So, what do you do?

It has been brought up several times here on this forum. What do you do to prevent others from taking your stuff?

Put up a fence.

Done.

Get a dog.

Done.

What else is there? Sorry that the boy was shot, but it is hard to argue that it is unreasonable to shoot him. Why is it that some people think that you have no right to protect your property? If his car is stolen, he has no way to get to work, no way to provide for his family. If his car is vandalized the same thing happens, and it costs him money.

Sorry. Stay out of other people's property and this will not happen. A man is supposed to just stand by while others commit crimes on his property?

No.

[TorchTheWitch]

237. What. The. Fuck.

Are you fucking serious? What was he supposed to DO??? How about yell at the kid to get out of his yard and that he's armed? Jesus Christ on a cracker, there is NO justification for shooting someone just because they are in your fucking yard! ZERO. They are no threat to you. You are not in any danger of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or someone else, and that is the ONLY reason it is EVER justifiable to shoot someone. EVER.

The kid only trespassed on his property and may have had every reasonable reason to do so. Maybe he lost a ball in the guy's yard. Maybe his dog went through his iron fence rails into his yard. Maybe he was intending on stealing or vandalizing his property, but he guy shot him before the kid ever DID anything other than hop his fence into his yard for what reason he knew not and he fucking SHOT HIM. He committed no crime. He most certainly committed no crime worthy of being shot.

Holy crap, I can't even believe you or anyone thinks it's justifiable to fucking SHOOT someone just for trespassing on your yard! Please God I hope you don't fucking own a gun because it sure sounds like you'd plug some teenager just for losing their ball on your lawn or wanting to knock on your door seeking some kind of help or whatever. The guy's an attempted murdering fucking trigger happy ASSWIPE which is exactly why he was arrested. And you think what he did is REASONABLE??? You think what he did is legal or should be legal??? You honestly don't know what else he could have done??? He couldn't call the police? He couldn't yell at the kid to get off his lawn? He couldn't warn the kid that he saw him and that he was armed and WAITED TO SEE WHAT THE KID WOULD DO??? A kid that just hops his fence onto his lawn and doesn't DO anything else is just fine to SHOOT???

[JVS]

260. Maybe a taser would qualify as non-lethal force.

[Hoyt]

264. Article: Law experts say trespassing under Louisiana code does not justify excessive force.

"If somebody is breaking into your car, the Louisiana Criminal Code allows you to use force -- but only force that is reasonable and necessary to prevent the trespass," Dane Ciolino, Loyola University law professor, said. "Deadly force is not authorized or justified under those circumstances."

http://www.wwltv.com/news/crime/Marigny-Shooting-217076851.html

[Ed Suspicious]

202. Killing people is a wrongdoing. Killing children is a

fucking travesty!

[pipoman]

218. "Children" don't wander the streets at 2 am...juviniles do that...

[Ed Suspicious]

234. Well then shoot the little bastard in the

head then, by all means.

[pipoman]

235. The use of inaccuracies in attempt to rile emotion

results in the opposite..

[Ed Suspicious]

241. Actually your definition of child as someone

who isn't outside at late hours is riling emotion in me. As the parent of a child that just turned fifteen, I can assure you she is a child at all hours of the day wherever she may be.

[pipoman]

245. she's 'your child'...not 'a child' by definition..

[Ed Suspicious]

250. Obtuse much? Is she an adult? Does her location and time

of day change that status?

[pipoman]

339. I'm sure she doesn't mind being referred to

as your child...if she is like most 15 year olds I would bet she doesn't like being referred to as a child, nor would she refer to herself as a child, nor would she wish to be treated like a child, nor would most people who know her refer to her as a child...just guessing of course..from my experience as a father and having employed at least fifty 14-17 year olds..

[gollygee]

272. What do you think the word "juvenile" means? n/t

[cali]

207. Nope. Fail. Not a "Trayvon Martin incident"

From what I can see, it's not a justified shooting, but this is quite different from the Trayvon Martin murder. It's cheap shit to compare it.

[ceonupe]

230. this ^^^^^^^ n/t

n/t

[BainsBane]

385. There is never going to be an exact case

The fact is an unarmed black teenager was killed by a gun nut. It's even possible that the Zimmerman verdict emboldened him in doing so.

[pintobean]

388. This isn't even close

other than it's a white on black shooting.

[BainsBane]

389. The shooter fulfilled the gun nut dream

of killing a young black male, just like their hero Zimmy. It's also possible he felt embolden in shooting the boy because of Z's acquittal.

[pintobean]

393. Nothing but speculation

without anything to back it up. Typical.

[BainsBane]

395. Oh, like all the speculation

that the 14 year old child was a criminal or going to murder the man's wife? Typical that doesn't concern you in the slightest.

[pintobean]

396. He was a criminal

His family said so.

[BainsBane]

397. People here speculated on that before that information was known

but that didn't concern you. I know it's terribly egregious of me not to justify the attempted killing of an unarmed teenager. I'm one of the horrible people on the planet that doesn't think killing other human beings is good sport.

Guess what, the shooter is a criminal. The police say so.

[pintobean]

398. If they were speculating

it was based on known facts - where, when and how. You're claiming to know what is in a man's heart. That's typical for you. You've made it clear that you think every gun owner and second amendment supporter is racist.

[BainsBane]

446. Bullshit

now you can't even bother reading.

[BainsBane]

448. Bullshit

now you can't even bother reading. Your personal grudges don't interest anyone, least of all me. I don't know what is it is that makes you incapable of engaging in discussion of ideas and policies and instead spend your time engaging in personal attacks, but I've long ago passed the point of caring.

[uponit7771]

500. Fail = another case were a black kid gets killed for little or nothing and racist support the killer

[southernyankeebelle]

210. Why did he shoot him in the head? He could have easily shot him in the leg so he couldn't

run away then call for help if he really thought something was up with the kid standing next to his car.

[geek_sabre]

279. You watch too much TV/movies

There is no "easily" shooting someone in the leg.

Its far too easy to miss if you try to aim at someone's arm or leg at any distance, especially if they're moving. What if you miss? What if the bullet goes into a neighbor's house and wounds or kills them? There's a reason people are taught to aim for center mass. It is most effective in stopping the attack, with minimal collateral damage. It just happens that it is also more likely to result in death.

If you do manage to hit the intruder in the leg, it may not stop the attack. If someone is high on bath salts or PCP, they probably won't even notice they've been hit until they've lost a substantial amount of blood (and will continue to attack). The intruder may end up mortally wounded anyway (dying from blood loss or shock), or crippled for life. If they live, they'll have standing to sue you.

Shooting someone-- in the arm, leg, toe, chest, or head-- is deadly force. There is no such thing as shooting to wound. Its reckless and dangerous. And it suggests that you didn't feel threatened enough to use deadly force.
If you aren't willing to shoot to stop an attack, regardless of whether the attacker lives or dies, then don't bother with a gun. Leave "warning shots," "leg shots" and shooting guns out of criminals hands to Hollywood.

[southernyankeebelle]

351. guess I watch way to much tv. After all killing for the sake of a car or like the wild west

a horse a life really doesn't matter today. Just standing around while being black give a person a right to do anything.

[Duckhunter935]

288. No yoou can not

that is TV. You are trained to shoot center mass until the threat stops. With adrenalin and depending on the handgun, leg shots are almost impossible. He may have been aiming at center mass and still hit the kid in the head.

[southernyankeebelle]

353. Well maybe this guy shouldn't have a gun. I mean if you shoot a guy for standing by your

car only shows me the man don't need a gun.

[spin]

303. There are a lot of arteries in the leg. A shot that hits the femoral artery can result ...

in the victim dying quickly due to rapid blood loss.

I should point out that I am not defending the homeowner. In my opinion the kid posed little or no immediate threat to him.

[southernyankeebelle]

355. Yes I agree with you totally. This business of standing your ground isn't working for

black americans. I am ashamed my race acts like they are superior than others.

[GreenStormCloud]

558. Some statistics for you:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
Black on White - 4 convicted, 12 justified, 4 pending
White on Black - 3 convicted, 14 justified, 5 pending
The numbers ae pretty close to equal. It has certainly worked for 12 black people who shot whites.

[B2G]

216. "Coulter's family acknowledged the teen's history of burglary arrests"

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[Skip Intro]

229. And the picture becomes a bit more clear. n/t

[KeepItReal]

219. Not accurate. The shooter was arrested. And charged.

Not TM at all.

[pipoman]

225. If it turns out

the shot kid was entering the yard with criminal intent, the kid himself and/or the lookout on the street could be charged with the shooting too..

[Skip Intro]

226. Don't screw around with other people's property.

I'll wait for the facts to come out before laying blame here, but if you don't want to get shot invading someone's home or property, don't invade someone's home or property. People have a right to defend and protect their homes and lives. Period. The kid shouldn't have been there.

I'll say this too. In inner cities across the US, hundreds have been shot and killed during and since the Zimmerman trial, mostly young black males, mostly by other young black males. Where is breathless outrage for those victims and their murderers?

[NOLALady]

401. " Where is breathless outrage for those victims and their murderers? "

You will find the outrage for those victims in the Black communities.

I hear it all the time.

[Skip Intro]

408. I mean on DU, but it is true of the msm as well.

How many threads do you see on the high rates of black on black gun violence? How many have you seen this year?

Why do you think that is?

[The Straight Story]

239. Sounds like the teens were casing the place (and more):

Earlier in the evening, a different neighbor said, the teen in the blue tank top had been biking around the area around 8 p.m. and the neighbor believed he was looking at different houses.

"I thought about calling the cops, but the last thing I want to do is racially profile a little kid who's just biking," said the neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The neighbor and Landry are white; the two teens are black.

Hazouri said his video, which he gave to NOPD detectives, shows the two teens talking in the middle of Mandeville Street outside of Landry's house. The video then shows the teen in the light-colored T-shirt walk his bike across Mandeville toward Landry's house. Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.

Landry's large dog started barking, which alerted Landry to the teen being inside his yard, according to Landry's friends.

Landry, who has a pregnant wife and baby daughter, believed the teen was trying to break into his house, Hazouri said.

"Merritt is a friend. I can't blame him one bit," Hazouri said. "He's got a family. You've got to protect your own."

--------------------

I know my hood, and I can spot someone casing it and have many times. And no surprise I have seen same said folks breaking in to homes here. In our case out area is cut off from most places due to a main road, creek, and two freeways. There are no stores, no neighborhood really close to here. I know when there is an accident nearby because the cars driving through here are not the normal ones.

I am not saying he was right to shoot someone in this case - we need more facts. Small yard, he walks out to see what is going on with a gun to protect himself, guy runs towards him and the gate he climbed over, feel threatened, shoot - being it was dark it could get confusing, may not have seen the gun (even if a porch light was on it would not help since the shooters back would be to the light and the other person's eyes would be to it) - fast, confusing, and no indication he just went out there to shoot up some teen.

[Hoyt]

252. Apparently got him in the head at 30 feet. There goes lighting and threatened justification.

Again, I agree we don't have the facts, but those into guns tend to support the shooter.

Glad to see the police arrested this guy. If facts prove differently, they can let him go.

[The Straight Story]

283. Not supporting him

But I don't think he just went out randomly and shot someone. Person was in his yard - there is a reasonable doubt about charging him with murder in a case like this.

And I am not into guns, I don't own one. But I am not so blinded by hatred and fear of those who do to let it constantly color my view of them. I tend to like to have an open mind on a subject.

[JustAnotherGen]

254. It doesn't look like

Trayvin's murder to me. Is the man who shot the 14 year old a dumb shit? Yep.

But Trayvon was NOT on private property. He had every right to be where he was walking home to hs SM's house. We do a disservice to Trayvon when we compare him to trouble makers.

[JH19059]

256. This not even close to Trayvon's case!!!!

Searched the internet looking for more info and it seems this kid was out at 2 A.M., left his bike with his friend and scaled a spiked wrought iron privacy fence. According to his family he's a thief with a record and was currently awaiting trial for as his brother put it for "stealing stuff". Add everything up using deductive reasoning and it's not too hard to figure that he climbed that fence with criminal intentions. Sad he was shot but to some their property means the difference between having a roof over their heads and eating off a table or living on the street and eating in soup kitchens. But to even attempt to frame this as some innocent kid riding his bike who was profiled and killed does nothing but blur lines and does a disservice to Trayvon!

[link:http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html|

[BainsBane]

359. So does the possibility he was going to kill something

mean he deserved to be killed on sight?

[Dash87]

282. We've had our cars broken into more times than I can count -

It's annoying, but I wouldn't shoot somebody over it (or hurt them). That's what an insane person does. I have to wonder about the psyche of someone like this - they can't wait to fire their guns off and kill. They shouldn't own a gun, and should probably be in a mental institution.

[Sissyk]

294. Your really should be ashamed

of yourself for making a comparison between this and Trayvon. Trayvon was an innocent kid on public property walking home from the store. He WAS NOT OUT AT 2 AM ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Using Trayvon to try to make a point is sickening to me.

[BainsBane]

362. Did you notice this is an article from a website and a news paper

The excerpt portion shows quite clearly I did not write it. Take up your objections with the author of the article.

As much as it may sicken you, some people are concerned about the lives of other African American youth killed by gun nuts. The very danger in Zimmerman's acquittal is that it would lead others to feel they could kill black men with impunity. That is something that concerns any one with a conscience.

[Sissyk]

430. Anyone with a conscience, would not

compare this awful incident with Trayvon. Do you not see the difference? Yes, I noticed it was an article from a website, but you posted it.. Therefore, you compared it to Trayvon being killed for walking home in a public place.

You are using shootings of young black kids for your own agenda.

So, in my opinion, you don't give a fuck about Trayvon. Just your gun agenda.

[Dr. Strange]

514. What, didn't Trayvon have a history of arrests for burglary?

Well, Zimmerman's brother did say that a civil lawsuit "Might Not Be Very Flattering" To Trayvon Martin's family. Pity to see some DUers trashing Trayvon.

[killbotfactory]

295. The kid was clearly armed with the sidewalk. Case closed.

[tammywammy]

296. This is nothing like Trayvon Martin. n/t

[boomer55]

298. Per his family. "He's a professional thief"

With a long history of arrests. That's from the shot kids brother. Sounds justifiable to me.

[pintobean]

302. Did the shooter know that?

You make it sound like a sanctioned execution of a small time thief by a private citizen.

[boomer55]

444. Castle doctrine

The dude had to climb an imposing fence with a dog behind it. He made the choice to invade a family's property. Sucks to be him but the proprty owner didn't go looking for the perp he was protecting his family from an invader with unkonwn intentions and unknown weapons

[NOLALady]

380. Seriously?

Justifiable execution of a dumb assed 14 year old by a George Zimmerman wannabe?


Whatever.

[Eleanors38]

304. It is unfortunate the OP has chosen to wave the bloody...

...flag with this incident, which is highly dissimilar to the Martin/Zimmerman case. It would be better to see more facts come out instead of jumping to imaginative, if not fabricated, conclusions.

[BainsBane]

363. Would it be too much to actually click on the click

and see it's an article that I did not write? But why pass up an opportunity to insult someone personally.

[Jenoch]

516. You did not write it, you posted it, and you seem to be defending the

position of comparing the two shootings, if not, why post it?

[UglyGreed]

316. I must ask if this child was

arrested for trespassing or if he was caught with something stolen from the yard would the courts and the DA seek the death penalty???? Is life so cheap that we need to kill some kids for doing stupid things. WTF people!!!!

[Blue Idaho]

332. Could a cop legally shoot a suspect in the same circumstances?

Lets say this guy called the cops who found the kid standing by by the car. Could they have legally pulled the trigger? I say no - and I say that makes it murder.

[workinclasszero]

348. Its going to keep happening over and over. Stand your ground laws are a legal license to kill

They will be used to kill minorities and get away with it as Zimmerman just proved.

Most horrible is 70 some percent of white people in this country agreed with Zimmerman killing a kid who was "armed" with skittles and iced tea, just walking back to his home.

All the creeps on Zimmermans jury had to hear was Zimmerman was acting in accordance with the law. Murderer goes free.

It will happen again and again, I have no doubt.

[GeorgeGist]

375. Obviously shooting to kill was the only option.

It's not like the kid had arms or legs.

[Crepuscular]

399. given previous

examples of the behavior of some of the other innocent, misunderstood kids that seem to roam this neighborhood during the early hours of the morning, it's hard to imagine how the homeowner could have felt threatened by somebody climbing over his fence in the middle of the night. Maybe he should have just offered them some milk and cookies.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/from_hospital_bed_marigny_bott.html

[BainsBane]

415. What do crime stats say about this particular boy?

[Travis_0004]

453. According to his uncle, he was involved in several burglerys, and got caught up in the wrong crowd.

http://theadvocate.com/news/6625642-123/story.html

[Crepuscular]

455. crime stats?

we don't need crime stats, we have his own family admitting that he is a "professional thief", who is currently on trial for previous thefts. A professional thief, jumping a gated, locked iron fence at 2:00 in the morning while, committing a crime..............and you want to compare him to Trayvon Martin? Shame on you.

[Common Sense Party]

403. Just curious, do cities have curfews anymore? When I grew up, there was a 10 p.m. curfew under a

certain age.

[BainsBane]

416. I don't think so

[Common Sense Party]

443. It looks like many cities still do.

http://www.citymayors.com/society/usa-youth-curfews.html

[GreenStormCloud]

407. The information is limited, but it sounds like attempted Murder 2 to me.

Opinion subject to change as further information becomes known. Someone who is outside your house is usually not a threat to you. Call 911 if they are messing with your stuff. Don't go outside to take care of it yourself. He may be armed too and you could lose the gunfight. If the intruder has forcefully, illegally, broken into your house, then the fight is on.

[MaineBlueDog]

466. The guy did not have a normal yard.

The guy had a tiny patch of land that was rate at his back door and for a person to be there they would have already bypassed one locked gate.

[oneshooter]

477. I don't either, I live on 40 acres.

[TorchTheWitch]

485. so what?

The kid was still in the YARD not in the house, and at the time of the shooting was not attempting to break into the house. It makes no difference what the size of the yard is. There's no reason to shoot someone who has merely trespassed on your property.

[GreenStormCloud]

513. True. But the intruder was still outside the house.

Only in rare circumstances is a person outside the residence a threat to a person inside.

[uponit7771]

503. +1, not only that but there were witness's in this case, the guy was 30 feet away from the kid & vid

...video evidence is something the police had to look at already.

This is worse than TM but there are people still defending the killer

[GreenStormCloud]

515. Mostly, they are objecting to whitewashing the teen as "just cutting across the yard".

The teen was clearly about to try to steal, but that isn't a reason to use deadly force against him. Proper action would have been to call 911, or perhaps to simply yell at him, but STAY IN THE HOUSE.

[HiPointDem]

525. normally i would agree, but in this case there are reasons the homeowner might not have

considered that a good option.

1. pregnant wife & baby.
2. tiny shotgun style house blocked on 3 sides with only one exit, directly onto the street (which is also tiny -- and where the trespasser's friend is.
3. access to car is blocked by trespasser.
4. high violent crime neighborhood.
5. Poor police response times
5. 2 am
6. trespasser is at back door
7. homeowner doesn't know trespasser's intentions


So if the trespasser *did* enter the house and had been armed, what's the homeowner going to do? The only thing possible is to take his pregnant wife & baby out the front door & try to make a run for it, try to wake the neighbors, etc. Can't get to the car because the trespasser is right next to it. It's 2 am, the neighbors are in bed, it will take some time & noise to roust them.

But there's the trespasser's friend on the street outside, & the street is faced almost completely with house fronts -- nowhere to hide. So he & his pregnant wife & baby would basically be running down a bowling alley/shooting gallery environment in a high crime neighborhood if the guy had intended to enter the house.

I'd be very frightened in that situation, whatever color or age the intruder was. It ticks me off to see people comparing this with the martin case or pooh-poohing it as kids cutting across yards.

Trayvon Martin was doing nothing but walking back to the home of his father's friend right after dinnertime. He had every right to be where he was and he was doing nothing wrong.

[hrmjustin]

422. Some very interesting responses in here.

Over 400 posts, I think you hit a nerve BB.

[pintobean]

426. The funny bone.

[uponit7771]

504. Yeap, the same people who defended the racist Zimmerman are defending this guy too

[MaineBlueDog]

464. I am thinking this is justified.

I am thinking this is justified. The homeowner hears a noise at 2am around his back door in his postage stamp of a yard behind a large fence, not knowing what it is he go's out to investigate and is startled to find a large dark figure just a few feet from him, not knowing if the person intends to do him harm he shoots first. Since the "kid" was shot in the head that tells me he was at a very close distance to the homeowner and supports my theory that the homeowner had a reasonable fear for his life to use lethal force.

[pintobean]

465. 30 feet is not a close distance.

welcome to DU

[BainsBane]

469. If you do the same you will also end up on trial

Murder is not justified. Killing for sport is not justified. Killing to protect stuff is not justified. Your lawnmower isn't worth more than a human life.

The piece of garbage is charged with attempted murder, as is appropriate. Anyone would would do what this man did is a premeditated killer and deserves life in prison. If the boy dies, I hope that's what this murderer gets.

That the kid was shot at the head at less than 30 ft indicates the homeowner was lying. If one is in legitimate fear for his life, he does not need to lie to cover up a crime.

The fact that someone is in your yard isn't a threat to your life. This just shows what a danger to society cowards with guns truly are.

[oneshooter]

475. If I find someone in my yard, at 2am, there will be trouble.

By being in my yard means he has crossed a 5 strand barbwire fence, or climbed a set of 8" tall gates, traveled 100yds or more across my property and arrived at my house. There is a bell and telephone clearly marked and lit at the gate.
He/she will be met by me, and I will be armed. He/she will do as they are told and not argue, or make any sudden moves. My loving Wife will also be armed and calling the sheriff. You will be told to lay face down with your hands and legs spread, if you move you may be shot.
Tell your story to the sheriff deputy, it's a 45 min trip to the station.

[BainsBane]

476. You do realize this case is in a heavily populated city?

Not the outback.

[pipi_k]

489. Five words...

Kitty Genovese

New. York. City.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

[HiPointDem]

524. the genovese case is nothing like this one. absolute nonsense.

[MaineBlueDog]

479. We don't know that it was about "stuff"

Once the home owner stepped out in his own back "yard" (aka tiny spec of inclosed ground practically part of his house) and realized there was a person just feet from him he might of really felt reasonable fear for his life. As far as the homeowner lying could just be a legitimate difference in perception of distance, especially describing it with adrenalin still going through his blood.

[BainsBane]

480. If he was a complete coward

He might have been afraid. Normal people do not. There is nothing reasonable about fearing for one's life because someone is in your yard. Instead, it shows a clear desire to kill another person, which is why he is charged with attempted murder.

[pipi_k]

487. Too bad...

the Zantops weren't bigger cowards. Had they been bigger cowards, they might still be alive today.

Please note that these two killers showed up at the Zantops' door during the daytime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Dartmouth_College_murders

Well, shit...what's to be suspicious of a couple of white boys knocking on their door in the morning, claiming to be students conducting a survey???

I'll bet the Zantops' friends and family wish they had been more suspicious and "cowardly"...to the point of assuming that anyone on their property is there to murder them.

Every time someone I don't know shows up on my property...

I think of Half and Suzanne Zantop and what they lost by being naive.

[Agschmid]

486. Quote from New Orleans PD...

Police sources later told the Times-Picayune that Coulter posed no threat to Landry or his family.

Source

Just so we are clear.



That guy... shot an unarmed 14 y/o... they must be feeding these 14 y/o's LOTS of spinach nowadays to make them so life threatening.

Also just in case...

Enjoy your stay on DU.

[HiPointDem]

521. just for the record: the issue is whether the homeowner *believed* the kid posed a threat.

and i doubt that's a direct quote from 'police sources'. the kid didn't have a gun, that's what it amounts to. but the homeowner didn't know that when he shot.

there was reason to *believe* there was a threat, because the kid had come into the 'yard' at 2 am, with some difficulty, since he had to vault a chest-high spiked iron fence to get there, and was a foot or so from the side door.

and because the neighborhood was one in which armed burglary, robbery and assault are commonplace, the house was small and exit was blocked on 3 sides by houses which enclosed the property, the homeowner had a pregnant wife and baby, and there was no way to escape the house with his family without putting them into danger as the 'yard' was basically a parking strip for the car, which the trespasser was standing right next to.

the reason the shot was from '30 feet away' is that rather than go out the side door which the kid was standing right next to, the shooter went to the front porch that exited on the sidewalk (where the kid's friend was waiting). the house is literally 30 feet long, tiny. It appears to be maybe 800 ft2.

[Agschmid]

522. Hey just maybe...

The kid was running into that guys yard to get away from another white guy who was trying to shoot him?

[HiPointDem]

523. he didn't 'run' into the yard. he climbed over a chest high iron spiked fence. and since the

property = a cul-de-sac with no exit except from the front, the white guys would then have him trapped.

and NOPD has poor response times.

[Agschmid]

528. Okay

No cul-de-sac in sight...



Here is the front of the house...



It would appear to take some effort to get over that fence I will give you that, and also it does look like the property itself is a shotgun house and there is not a way off of it except through the front or neighboring property (is that what you meant by cup-de-sac?... Either way I doubt the 14 year old kid was a parkour expert.

This is a flamebait OP. I am anti gun... and it's pretty clear so the minute the gun got involved it went TOO far. End of story in my opinion.

[HiPointDem]

533. "Cul-de-sac: is an expression of French origin also used in Catalan and Occitan referring to a dead

end, closed, no through road, or court meaning dead-end street with only one inlet/outlet."

The 'yard' is literally a court with no exit but from the front, where the kid jumped the fence to get in. The homeowner's property butts directly against the neighbor's house on the right and back & the homeowner's house blocks exit on the left. If you look at other photos you can see that there's no means of exit but from the front. There is no 'neighbor's property' -- because the neighbors' houses butt directly on this property; they don't have yards.

This case is nothing like the martin case; it is much more ambiguous. I personally think some people have ulterior motives when they compare this to the martin case.

[MaineBlueDog]

467. The 30 feet thing does not add up.

For one the guys yard based on that photo does not look like its 30 feet and for two, unless the guy had military/police training he would need to be much closer to make a head shot in the dark like that.

[cstanleytech]

484. So he shot an unarmed kid who wasnt attacking him whos only crime was

he climbed a fence? Sounds like manslaughter at the very least but then again I thought Zimmerman would be convicted of that atleast as well and we all saw as the jury let him take a walk on that one.

[NCTraveler]

490. Appears to be nothing like the Trayvon murder. nt.

[uponit7771]

501. The racist who supported Z the first time is supporting this guy. He was 30 feet away and witness's

...say he was no threat IE the reason the shooter was arrested this time

[NCTraveler]

509. Correct. He was arrested. nt

[HiPointDem]

520. what 'witnesses'? so far as i have heard, there were no witnesses except possibly the kid's

friend.

[geckosfeet]

526. This was in/near New Orleans - not Florida. Laws are very different.

[BainsBane]

527. The cases differ in several regards

but it is another case of an unarmed black teenager being killed by a white gun man, which is why some are connecting it to the Trayvon Martin case.

Many fear that the Zimmerman verdict will lead to more killings of black males.

[oneshooter]

529. It looks to me like YOU are the only one"connecting it to the Trayvon Martin case." n/t

[BainsBane]

530. So you couldn't be bother to click on the link in the OP

Or read the Google news search I handed to you on a spoon? Or is it that you simply cannot read at all? I didn't write the headline of this story or the many others on the web. You clearly see very little.

[oneshooter]

531. You are the one pushing it on DU.

So you now say that this case is different?

[BainsBane]

532. I posted the article

but to claim "YOU are the only one"connecting it to the Trayvon Martin case" is clearly false, as the evidence put to you before your outburst showed.

I'm sorry you are so invested in suppressing news stories and analysis, but I can't say I'm surprised. Maintaining your views on guns requires shutting out a great deal. I myself prefer not to adopt positions that require forsaking intellectual integrity.

[oneshooter]

540. So you believe that the headline is misleading? n/t

[Beacool]

535. No, the circumstances are not the same.

A neighbor said that this kid and another one had been riding bikes in the area around 8 PM and were looking at the houses (the shooting incident took place at 1:44 AM).

"I thought about calling the cops, but the last thing I want to do is racially profile a little kid who's just biking," said the neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The neighbor and Landry are white; the two teens are black.

Hazouri said his video, which he gave to NOPD detectives, shows the two teens talking in the middle of Mandeville Street outside of Landry's house. The video then shows the teen in the light-colored T-shirt walk his bike across Mandeville toward Landry's house. Then, the teen walks back out to the middle of the road before climbing over Landry's fence, Hazouri said. The other teen in the tank top stayed on the other side of Mandeville Street, Hazouri said.

Landry's large dog started barking, which alerted Landry to the teen being inside his yard, according to Landry's friends.

Landry, who has a pregnant wife and baby daughter, believed the teen was trying to break into his house, Hazouri said.

I'm sorry that Landry was so fast in shooting, but by jumping the fence into Landry's property, the teenager was trespassing. Although I hope that he makes a full recovery, trespassing should not be grounds for being killed.

[noiretextatique]

539. nope

just getting shot in the head.

[okieinpain]

543. this is not trayvon at all, trayvon was'nt doing anything

Was'nt out late, was'nt looking in peoples homes, was'nt in a place he should'nt be. Sounds like this kid got caught and paid the price for it.

[NOLALady]

544. I think Trayvon's case

proves that it does not matter whether they play by the rules or not.

If they are out at 7pm, looking for a snack, they can be shot and killed.

If they are out at 2AM, looking for trouble, they can be shot in the head.

Seems that some will have to pay the price regardless of their motives.

[okieinpain]

561. yeah but if your out looking for trouble

Sooner or later you're going to find it.

[NOLALady]

564. Maybe.

It seems that some (young black males) find trouble whether or not they are looking for it.

It seems that others, literally get away with murder. The way I see it, Zimmerman was out looking for trouble. He found it and killed an innocent child. He didn't have to pay a price.