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

[skookerasbil]

Gotta say.......I laugh my balls off every time I post this gem!!!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wait a minute. Are some of you guys telling me that I can't shoot a kid on my lawn? What the hell other pleasure does a crabby old guy like me have anymore?

No, that is not what anyone has said.

Try a reading comprehension class, then get back to us.

Nobody is gonna get any sarcasm past you, are they?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There is a simple formula which governs the motion of a projectile when it goes straight up (no inclination). It is v = u + gt where v = final velocity, u = initial velocity, g = acceleration due to gravity and t = time.

When a projectile is thrown straight up, its velocity decreases steadily, it is called negative g or -g till it reaches zero. The distance between the point of initial velocity and final velocity is the maximum distance a projectile can travel given a particular initial velocity (u). We will call it h.

Based on what we know we can simplify our equation to: 0 = u -gt, which is u = gt.

As you can see from the equation, we can deduce the initial velocity if we simply time the fall of the projectile. The value of g by the way is 9.8m/s^2.

So that pretty much tells us two things among few other things:

a) It takes the projectile same amount of time to traverse up and down on h.
b) The projectile returns with the same velocity it leaves.

A bullet fired straight up reaches apogee, loses it's spin stabilization and tumbles back to earth at 9.8 meters per second per second UNTIL it reaches terminal velocity at 90 meters per second...much slower than the velocity at which it left the barrel.

Your calculation may be correct in a vacuum, but not within earths atmosphere.

Mythbusters did a show on this not to long ago and discovered the rounds fell at a much slower rate then expected. They came up with around 120 mph or 53 meters per second if I remember correctly.

 

[Zona]

"...Are you dense?..."

No.

Like anyone else, I can be dumb as a box-o-rox from time to time, but not today, and not over this.

YOU are the one who doubted the existence of a 7-foot-fence, in post No. 302 (above)...

"Where did you see '7 foot fence'? Here we go again ."

My own posts were merely designed to serve-up the evidence you sought.

I have no clue what YOU thought I was talking about.

Confidence is fairly high that you lost track of the conversation in that narrow context.

Your problem, not mine.

He jumped a fence. Even if it was 7 ft. in the middle, the picture you posted shows it is NOT 7 feet on either end.

That is my point. He jumped it, sure, but do you honestly think he jumped it in the middle? He jumped it on the smaller end. That makes sense, no?

Oh and fuck him. I feel for the shooter in a sense. In the sense that he felt like he was protecting his family but I do not want to see him go unpunished for being a irresponsible gun owner with a bad shoot.

WAIT FOR HIM TO ENTER YOUR HOME AND BLOW HIS BRAINS OUT. That is the proper way to do this.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Wait a minute. Are some of you guys telling me that I can't shoot a kid on my lawn? What the hell other pleasure does a crabby old guy like me have anymore?

No, that is not what anyone has said.

Try a reading comprehension class, then get back to us.

Try developing a sense of humor, and then get back to me.

 

[Zona]

Gotta say.......I laugh my balls off every time I post this gem!!!!!

Is he...really.

How is the old fat ass doing? HOw goes the job prospects? Going to a store and getting skittles? Walking down a street and "patroling" it. I hope you stay in hiding forever or step to the wrong guy.

I hope this shit stain ends up right next to OJ. I swear I really do.

NOw back to this shooter.. Dude, let them break in. I know its against everything in you, but that is the law. THEN SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD. Its what I would do as a gun owner here in Arizona.

Damn I hate thieves.

 

[Kondor3]

"...He jumped a fence. Even if it was 7 ft. in the middle, the picture you posted shows it is NOT 7 feet on either end.

That is my point. He jumped it, sure, but do you honestly think he jumped it in the middle? He jumped it on the smaller end..."

I have no idea what-the-fuck your point is, and, I've given up on trying to figure it out, so, let's just let this go, eh? Thank you for your time.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is a simple formula which governs the motion of a projectile when it goes straight up (no inclination). It is v = u + gt where v = final velocity, u = initial velocity, g = acceleration due to gravity and t = time.

When a projectile is thrown straight up, its velocity decreases steadily, it is called negative g or -g till it reaches zero. The distance between the point of initial velocity and final velocity is the maximum distance a projectile can travel given a particular initial velocity (u). We will call it h.

Based on what we know we can simplify our equation to: 0 = u -gt, which is u = gt.

As you can see from the equation, we can deduce the initial velocity if we simply time the fall of the projectile. The value of g by the way is 9.8m/s^2.

So that pretty much tells us two things among few other things:

a) It takes the projectile same amount of time to traverse up and down on h.
b) The projectile returns with the same velocity it leaves.

not really

 

[Zona]

Police say witness statement does not match Merritt Landry story. Police also say his shell casing was found over 30 feet from where unarmed 14 year old Marshall Coulter was shot. According to police those are the reasons Merritt Landry was arrested.

[youtube]wlJl_0r9MZQ[/youtube] [youtube]r9Oeiebhhrk[/youtube]

Does anyone know if the kid was shot in the back of his head? That might be an interesting snag in the shooters story.? You can see he was shot at the gate, even that might mean something with his trial.

Bad shoot, but I understand trying to protect your family.

Fuck that little thief. Screw him, but not in this instance. THIS one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is a simple formula which governs the motion of a projectile when it goes straight up (no inclination). It is v = u + gt where v = final velocity, u = initial velocity, g = acceleration due to gravity and t = time.

When a projectile is thrown straight up, its velocity decreases steadily, it is called negative g or -g till it reaches zero. The distance between the point of initial velocity and final velocity is the maximum distance a projectile can travel given a particular initial velocity (u). We will call it h.

Based on what we know we can simplify our equation to: 0 = u -gt, which is u = gt.

As you can see from the equation, we can deduce the initial velocity if we simply time the fall of the projectile. The value of g by the way is 9.8m/s^2.

So that pretty much tells us two things among few other things:

a) It takes the projectile same amount of time to traverse up and down on h.
b) The projectile returns with the same velocity it leaves.

A bullet fired straight up reaches apogee, loses it's spin stabilization and tumbles back to earth at 9.8 meters per second per second UNTIL it reaches terminal velocity at 90 meters per second...much slower than the velocity at which it left the barrel.

Your calculation may be correct in a vacuum, but not within earths atmosphere.

There is a simple formula which governs the motion of a projectile when it goes straight up (no inclination). It is v = u + gt where v = final velocity, u = initial velocity, g = acceleration due to gravity and t = time.

When a projectile is thrown straight up, its velocity decreases steadily, it is called negative g or -g till it reaches zero. The distance between the point of initial velocity and final velocity is the maximum distance a projectile can travel given a particular initial velocity (u). We will call it h.

Based on what we know we can simplify our equation to: 0 = u -gt, which is u = gt.

As you can see from the equation, we can deduce the initial velocity if we simply time the fall of the projectile. The value of g by the way is 9.8m/s^2.

So that pretty much tells us two things among few other things:

a) It takes the projectile same amount of time to traverse up and down on h.
b) The projectile returns with the same velocity it leaves.

A bullet fired straight up reaches apogee, loses it's spin stabilization and tumbles back to earth at 9.8 meters per second per second UNTIL it reaches terminal velocity at 90 meters per second...much slower than the velocity at which it left the barrel.

Your calculation may be correct in a vacuum, but not within earths atmosphere.

Mythbusters did a show on this not to long ago and discovered the rounds fell at a much slower rate then expected. They came up with around 120 mph or 53 meters per second if I remember correctly.

yes but again that is only when shot straight up

 

[Zona]

"...He jumped a fence. Even if it was 7 ft. in the middle, the picture you posted shows it is NOT 7 feet on either end.

That is my point. He jumped it, sure, but do you honestly think he jumped it in the middle? He jumped it on the smaller end..."

I have no idea what-the-fuck your point is, and, I've given up on trying to figure it out, so, let's just let this go, eh? Thank you for your time.

At first, you thought I was defending that shit stain, I NEVER did. Ever, so you went on the defensive.

Eventually you read what I wrote and realized I was saying the same thing you were.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a simple formula which governs the motion of a projectile when it goes straight up (no inclination). It is v = u + gt where v = final velocity, u = initial velocity, g = acceleration due to gravity and t = time.

When a projectile is thrown straight up, its velocity decreases steadily, it is called negative g or -g till it reaches zero. The distance between the point of initial velocity and final velocity is the maximum distance a projectile can travel given a particular initial velocity (u). We will call it h.

Based on what we know we can simplify our equation to: 0 = u -gt, which is u = gt.

As you can see from the equation, we can deduce the initial velocity if we simply time the fall of the projectile. The value of g by the way is 9.8m/s^2.

So that pretty much tells us two things among few other things:

a) It takes the projectile same amount of time to traverse up and down on h.
b) The projectile returns with the same velocity it leaves.

I love internet experts.

Tell me something, genius, did you account for air resistance?

 

[Zona]

I hope the 14 year old lives. I mean, he is 14 and there is a chance at redemption. What will probably happen to the shooter is maybe 3-5 but the problem is, his future is fucked. I honestly feel for him and his family, but when you are a gun owner, you have to be responsible.

 

[Noomi]

I don't understand why people think someone entering a house to steal should be killed. Since when was the sentence for burglary execution?

It just seems an excuse to blow someone away. If someone plans to enter your house to burlarize it, you feel it is approproprite to kill that person. Whatever the law allows or doesn't allow as far as shooting anyone who enters your home unauthorized, why, as an individual, do you wish to kill the person? Why talk about shooting them through the head or turning their body into Swiss cheese?

For example, why couldn't the guy in the original post have simply fired a warning shot into the sky and warned the kid he was armed? Then lock up his home tight and call the police? Once the supposed burglar knows he has been spotted and that the potential victim is armed, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he would leg it? Why kill him? And most importantly of all, why do so many posters who say they'd shoot him describe the potential experience of killing an intruder with such pleasure and relish?

What an idiotic post. The law presumes that a stranger who breaks into your home is there to do you harm. You don't have to retreat. You don't have to question him. You don't have to psychoanalyze him. Legally, he is there to do you HARM. That means you can use deadly force on him. For your information, warning shots have to come down somewhere. Warning shots are against every lesson we are taught about gun safety. I had a patient who fired a warning shot and when it came down it killed a child.

The home was not broken into. There is a big difference between scaling a fence and actually smashing a window to enter your home.

 

[Noomi]

Maybe he was drunk or on drugs? Once when I was a teenager, late at night one summer, when only I and my mom were at home, some man walked into our house. He was wet from walking though backyards and through peoples' sprinklers. She tried to talk to him and realized he was out of it, either drink or drugs. She approached him, talking to him, took his arm, and escorted him out of the house without incident. Sure, if he had been going to break in, and she didn't have a gun, it would have been safer to run and hide, not approach him, but what if she had just shot and asked questions later? She'd have killed someone who was just high and disoriented. How often do 14 year olds, by themselves, enter peoples homes, when people are in them, burlarize them, and injure or kill the people? Pretty much never. People who have guns need to think before they use them instead of just shooting. All this guy had to do was fire a warning bullet into the sky, make sure his house was locked up and call the police. He did not need to shoot anyone; you pro-gun people are all just salivating to blow someone away. It's sickening.

I had a break in when I lived in TN. I was at home, and the car was in the driveway. Fortunately for him, he left when I turned on the light.

My mother found an intruder sleeping on our couch years back( 35 ish) she beat him with a stool from the breakfast bar until he ran from the house.
6 hours later the old bird got nicked for assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
A single mother with 3 kids under the age of 10?

18 months.
We were put into government homes.

The old bird should have let him be.
He would have probably only raped my sister once.
The social workers at the care home she was stuck in made it a daily occurrence.

Ahh them good old fashioned liberals, looking after the little people!!!

She was charged because the man was sleeping, and not posing a threat to her. I understand her fear, but at the time, he didn't pose a threat to her.

 

[Noomi]

No there isn't.
All trespass should be considered a threat.
Why else would police respond to calls complaining that a trespasser is on private property?

Yes, there is. Like it or not, there is a massive difference between walking onto your front yard and actually jimmying the door and entering.

 

[Kondor3]

No there isn't.
All trespass should be considered a threat.
Why else would police respond to calls complaining that a trespasser is on private property?

Yes, there is. Like it or not, there is a massive difference between walking onto your front yard and actually jimmying the door and entering.

But the line becomes more blurred when someone vaults over your fence to come onto the gated portion of your property on which your actual house resides.

And if the particular collection of State Law in-question ALSO makes provision for the use of lethal force in order to PREVENT a break-in and to protect one's PROPERTY, well...

Or so I seem to recall reading, somewhere around here, in the last few hours...

Now, whether all of that applies here, in this context, we have yet to learn...

I have no clue how such things work in Australia, but here in the US, each State makes its own related Law in this area, subordinate to any overarching Federal Law...

And I'm beginning to wonder whether the State of Louisiana has left this shooter some wiggle-room in which to dodge the criminal charges that he's facing...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't understand why people think someone entering a house to steal should be killed. Since when was the sentence for burglary execution?

Don't have children living at home, do you?

It just seems an excuse to blow someone away.

If a stranger breaks into my house when my family is there I don't need an excuse to kill them. That being said - I don't own a gun, I own a dog, so its unlikely I'd be the one doing the killing. What a mess that would be.

 

[Noomi]

No there isn't.
All trespass should be considered a threat.
Why else would police respond to calls complaining that a trespasser is on private property?

Yes, there is. Like it or not, there is a massive difference between walking onto your front yard and actually jimmying the door and entering.

But the line becomes more blurred when someone vaults over your fence to come onto the gated portion of your property on which your actual house resides.

And if the particular collection of State Law in-question ALSO makes provision for the use of lethal force in order to PREVENT a break-in and to protect one's PROPERTY, well...

Now, whether all of that applies here, in this context, we have yet to learn...

I have no clue how such things work in Australia, but here in the US, each State makes its own related Law in this area, subordinate to any overarching Federal Law...

And I'm beginning to wonder whether the State of Louisiana has left this shooter some wiggle-room in which to dodge the criminal charges that he's facing...

Assuming it was his property. If he was renting, then does he have the right to protect a front yard that doesn't belong to him?

If you apply the law in that way, you could, by rights, shoot a door to door salesman because he entered your front yard.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

With Louisiana's history of oppressing whites this is no surprise.