14 y.o. black intrudor shot and killed in Louisiana, white home owner arrested.

[Meister]

We just need to confiscate everyone's handguns and rifles.
This is the end game for the anti gun politicians.

 

[Meister]

Still no outcry regarding the black on black gun deaths in America. Why is that?

 

[Katzndogz]

He was awaiting trial for stealing stuff!

If he lives, he needs to be locked up for life. He's a career criminal, starting early.

 

[Sunshine]

He was awaiting trial for stealing stuff!

If he lives, he needs to be locked up for life. He's a career criminal, starting early.

Gunshot would to the head. Not able to move all body parts. He isn't headed for prison. He is headed for a nursing home. For which WE will have to pay.

 

[Sunshine]

Still no outcry regarding the black on black gun deaths in America. Why is that?

LOL. In the words of my late husband's cousin: You funny boah!

 

[Katzndogz]

He was awaiting trial for stealing stuff!

If he lives, he needs to be locked up for life. He's a career criminal, starting early.

Gunshot would to the head. Not able to move all body parts. He isn't headed for prison. He is headed for a nursing home. For which WE will have to pay.

What we all have to pay will be offset against the cost of the crimes he would commit, the cost of police work, trials and court time, the cost of supporting him in and out of prison. Then there's the cost of all the children he would father with different welfare queens who lay their eggs indiscriminately.

Off hand, keeping him in a state facility is a bargain.

 

[KissMy]

He was awaiting trial for stealing stuff!

If he lives, he needs to be locked up for life. He's a career criminal, starting early.

Gunshot would to the head. Not able to move all body parts. He isn't headed for prison. He is headed for a nursing home. For which WE will have to pay.

Always shoot at least 3 times. Dead thug can't claim he was looking for his cat. Dead thug can't throw away the weapon you place in his hand. Burying a dead thug is cheaper than caring for a live one.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unfortunately, the laws in many jurisdictions allow just about any numbskull to have a firearm.

How dare they allow citizens to protect themselves!

 

[Kondor3]

Gunshots to the head do not usually yield a Happy Ending.

The kid is 14 years old and about as tough and resilient an age as a human being can be.

He has a better chance at recovery than either a little tyke or an adult.

We can all hope that the kid recovers entirely, but, if he does, it may take many months or years.

And if he survives in a less-than-optimal condition, the possibilities range from paralysis to mental impairment to a complete vegetative state.

In the case of the latter, for the child's sake, it might be best if he slipped away now rather than later.

But that's in the hands of God or Nature of The Fates or Pure Chance or however one perceives this Plane of Existence.

Meanwhile, his shooter is charged with Attempted Second Degree Murder.

Frankly, and speaking only for myself, I can easily and readily understand how such a thing can occur.

It was the wee hours of the morning, it was pitch-dark, the Intruder was already over the fence and within the gated yard-area, the intruder was dark-skinned and more difficult for the shooter to see in order to make-out size, age and facial expressions - and the shooter had a little girl and a pregnant wife to defend at all costs.

At all costs.

If I perceived that an Intruder was about to break into my house under such circumstances or I perceived that the Intruder was reaching for his waist or pocket after I challenged and told him to 'Halt' - and with a pregnant wife and precious child just behind my otherwise undefended door...

I'm fairly certain that I would have shot the Intruder myself, in such a way so as to inflict the maximum of lethal damage with the fewest number of shots and as quickly as possible, in order to defend my dear wife and child from possible harm during the course of a subsequent break-in.

Like many of us - when faced with the stark no-other-option necessity of killing in order to defend our loved ones - I'm pretty sure that I would kill without the slightest hesitation and damn the cost afterwards.

At least my wife and daughter would be safe.

Damn the cost.

If... IF... that was where that guy's head was at, that night..

And if... IF... his panic or fears were sufficiently well-founded that any other reasonable person with half-a-brain and an ounce-of-courage would also have perceived it in that same fashion...

Then, best of luck to him, in defending himself.

The pi$$ant little thief made the mistake of choosing the home of such a man... a man willing to defend his wife and daughter at all costs... and the kid paid a terrible price for his mistake - for his consciously-made choice.

I will be curious to see what other facts (if any) trickle in as this drama unfolds.

Meanwhile, regardless of whether the little phukker was awaiting trial for theft and regardless of whether he was entering those premises with the intention of stealing something or otherwise breaking in...

He's only 14 years old... and I hope God or The Fates give him another chance for a good life.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Its an opinion piece, so I would like a better source.

Also, the boy does appear to have broken into the property, by scaling the fence, however, he wasn't inside the residence when he was shot. All the man needed to do was to keep an eye on the rear door and phone the police. He could have shot the boy if, and only if, he entered the property.

He is being charged because his life was not threatened. Someone comes onto your property, your life is not in danger until the assailant comes face to face with you.

Two words. Joe Horn.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is not legal to shoot everyone who interests your yard, no matter what time of day or night.

You can in Texas. But it has to be at night.
But once you enter the home ....it's killing time 24-7.

No - You can't shoot someone trespassing in your yard at night in Texas unless they are attempting to steal, vandalize or break in.

The use of deadly force to protect property is contained in Texas Penal Code§9.42. This section of the law lays out a couple of scenarios where you are justified in reasonably using deadly force to protect your property. The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the night time or criminal mischief during the night time. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.

The second scenario is the law of recovering your property by using deadly force. Texas has a 3-prong test that, if met, gives a justification in using deadly force to recover stolen property. This test is as follows: (1) force is necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on land or unlawful interference with the property, (2) deadly force is reasonably necessary to prevent another who is immediately fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with the property, and (3) the person reasonably believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other method or that the use of non-deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Lawyers cannot stress enough that under this scenario, while the law may allow you to use deadly force - It Is Most Likely A Very Bad Idea!

Criminal trespass alone is not one of the crimes listed in Texas Penal Code §9.42 or even as part of the "Castle Doctrine" under §9.31 or §9.32. A mere criminal trespass may, however, evolve into one of the above crimes where you may be justified in using deadly force to protect your property. If someone decides to sit on your lawn, you holler at them from your bedroom window to "get off my property." If the trespasser refuses to leave, you are almost certainly not justified in using deadly force to remove him. But if that person sitting on your lawn gets up and charges towards your bedroom window with a firearm and a crow bar, you will very likely be legally justified in using deadly force to protect yourself and your home. His actions of charging you with a weapon make him more than just a trespasser under Texas law.

It will be assumed that anyone trespassing on my property at night is attempting to steal from me. If my dogs don't get 'em.....my shotgun will.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is an important point! People who have guns should not be going around shooting first and asking questions later. "Those who may have a predisposition toward acting without thinking" should not have guns!

Unfortunately, the laws in many jurisdictions allow just about any numbskull to have a firearm.

So, the guy with the gun is the numbskull, but the kid who scaled a fense onto someone else's property is what? A genius?

You guys are fucked in the head.

No, he was a stupid 14 year old adolescent. How many dumb stunts did you do at that age? Most of us, at least the adventerouse ones, did a great many.

The homeowner did not have reason to shoot unless he saw the gun. And, if the stupid kid was only in the yard, and had not touched anything, nor had a weapon, the homeowner committed manslaughter. Compounded by the age of the victim.

 

[Old Rocks]

You can in Texas. But it has to be at night.
But once you enter the home ....it's killing time 24-7.

No - You can't shoot someone trespassing in your yard at night in Texas unless they are attempting to steal, vandalize or break in.

The use of deadly force to protect property is contained in Texas Penal Code§9.42. This section of the law lays out a couple of scenarios where you are justified in reasonably using deadly force to protect your property. The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the night time or criminal mischief during the night time. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.

The second scenario is the law of recovering your property by using deadly force. Texas has a 3-prong test that, if met, gives a justification in using deadly force to recover stolen property. This test is as follows: (1) force is necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on land or unlawful interference with the property, (2) deadly force is reasonably necessary to prevent another who is immediately fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with the property, and (3) the person reasonably believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other method or that the use of non-deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Lawyers cannot stress enough that under this scenario, while the law may allow you to use deadly force - It Is Most Likely A Very Bad Idea!

Criminal trespass alone is not one of the crimes listed in Texas Penal Code §9.42 or even as part of the "Castle Doctrine" under §9.31 or §9.32. A mere criminal trespass may, however, evolve into one of the above crimes where you may be justified in using deadly force to protect your property. If someone decides to sit on your lawn, you holler at them from your bedroom window to "get off my property." If the trespasser refuses to leave, you are almost certainly not justified in using deadly force to remove him. But if that person sitting on your lawn gets up and charges towards your bedroom window with a firearm and a crow bar, you will very likely be legally justified in using deadly force to protect yourself and your home. His actions of charging you with a weapon make him more than just a trespasser under Texas law.

It will be assumed that anyone trespassing on my property at night is attempting to steal from me. If my dogs don't get 'em.....my shotgun will.

So, some drunk staggers into your yard and you blow him away. What a really tough fucker you truly are. The drunk would be more of a man than you in that case.

 

[GHook93]

The shooter is relying on the Louisiana Castle statute which is as follows:

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336

This was also reported in the NY Daily News:

A 14-year-old New Orleans boy was shot in the head early Friday morning after a homeowner said the unarmed teen was trying to break into his house.

Homeowner Merritt Landry, 33, who lives in Marigny, allegedly shot Marshall Coulter after fearing for his safety, and told friends and family he thought the teen had a gun.

New Orleans teen shot in the head by man who thought he was burglar: police - NY Daily News

Unfortunately, these types of statutes allow anyone to interpret then utilize them which leads to unnecessary injury or death. I do not have a problem with the man being arrested there will be an investigation and should the facts support his actions he will have be exonerated if not this could serve as a warning to those who may have a predisposition toward acting with out thinking.

This is an important point! People who have guns should not be going around shooting first and asking questions later. "Those who may have a predisposition toward acting without thinking" should not have guns!

Yes because intruders breaking into your house want to provide you milk and cookies. Just like this intruder!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oh0VocHmzY]Burglar Caught Viciously Beating Mother on Nanny Cam (Graphic Video) - YouTube[/ame]

First off, BLAME THE INTRUDER, whether he is a child or not, for breaking into the house. He was committing a crime (and from the story had a criminal record for numerous burglaries. Second, the law is the law. The prosecutor's job is to FOLLOW IT! This is actually a great law and it actually helps minorities in the ghetto more, since their homes burglarized more often!

 

[Kondor3]

"...So, some drunk staggers into your yard..."

Which is just a wee bit different than somebody intentionally vaulting your fence to get into your backyard at 1:44 AM, after having 'cased the joint' and others nearby, the day before... excuse me, but... puh-leeeze.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Unfortunately, the laws in many jurisdictions allow just about any numbskull to have a firearm.

So, the guy with the gun is the numbskull, but the kid who scaled a fense onto someone else's property is what? A genius?

You guys are fucked in the head.

No, he was a stupid 14 year old adolescent. How many dumb stunts did you do at that age? Most of us, at least the adventerouse ones, did a great many.

The homeowner did not have reason to shoot unless he saw the gun. And, if the stupid kid was only in the yard, and had not touched anything, nor had a weapon, the homeowner committed manslaughter. Compounded by the age of the victim.

Even at 14 I knew enough not to be skulking around some guy's yard at 2 AM.

And sorry but the age of the intruder doesn't matter.

As i said if a cop saw him reach to his hip after being told to freeze, that cop would have shot.

To expect any less from a home owner is unrealistic.

 

[Katzndogz]

Come on.
Get real.
This 14 year old was an accomplished burglar. He was, at the time of this shooting, awaiting trial on the last burglary. He wasn't an adventurous child. He was a criminal. He had been a criminal for a long time.

 

[KissMy]

You can in Texas. But it has to be at night.
But once you enter the home ....it's killing time 24-7.

No - You can't shoot someone trespassing in your yard at night in Texas unless they are attempting to steal, vandalize or break in.

The use of deadly force to protect property is contained in Texas Penal Code§9.42. This section of the law lays out a couple of scenarios where you are justified in reasonably using deadly force to protect your property. The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the night time or criminal mischief during the night time. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.

The second scenario is the law of recovering your property by using deadly force. Texas has a 3-prong test that, if met, gives a justification in using deadly force to recover stolen property. This test is as follows: (1) force is necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on land or unlawful interference with the property, (2) deadly force is reasonably necessary to prevent another who is immediately fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with the property, and (3) the person reasonably believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other method or that the use of non-deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Lawyers cannot stress enough that under this scenario, while the law may allow you to use deadly force - It Is Most Likely A Very Bad Idea!

Criminal trespass alone is not one of the crimes listed in Texas Penal Code §9.42 or even as part of the "Castle Doctrine" under §9.31 or §9.32. A mere criminal trespass may, however, evolve into one of the above crimes where you may be justified in using deadly force to protect your property. If someone decides to sit on your lawn, you holler at them from your bedroom window to "get off my property." If the trespasser refuses to leave, you are almost certainly not justified in using deadly force to remove him. But if that person sitting on your lawn gets up and charges towards your bedroom window with a firearm and a crow bar, you will very likely be legally justified in using deadly force to protect yourself and your home. His actions of charging you with a weapon make him more than just a trespasser under Texas law.

It will be assumed that anyone trespassing on my property at night is attempting to steal from me. If my dogs don't get 'em.....my shotgun will.

You & I may assume they are up to no good, but the law & prosecutor may assume you are going to jail & force you to pay far more for defense than the thug would have stole from you. I may not shoot unless something of great value is stolen. Because the law may take more than the thief. So it's not worth killing someone over a couple hundred bucks.

 

[Katzndogz]

Before Landry is judged in the court of public opinion, wait for an examination of the video. If it shows the thug reaching for his waistband Landry is going to walk.

 

[Kondor3]

"...it's not worth killing someone over a couple hundred bucks."

True.

Screw the money.

But it IS worth killing someone if it preserves the life and safety of my little daughter and my pregnant wife.