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

[Missourian]

What's the difference between a locked gate and a locked door?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Since i have New York Common Law Citizenship and the allodial title to my property, I am not subject to any of New York's statutes. Any event that transpires on my property is subject to the Common Law, as existed during the colonial era.

The current New York State Constitution specifically includes a provision that protects my unalienable rights (those not enumerated in the US or NYS Constitutions) as determined over centuries of experience through the English Common Law.

New York State Constitution:

§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. (Formerly §16. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

 

[OriginalShroom]

It is 2AM and a teenager, quite obviously, just wants to get home when he is shot by an armed homeowner for climbing over the locked gate protecting his driveway.



The homeowner has a pregnant wife and a child, and the teenager broke the law by scaling his fence. What do the police do when they arrive?

Arrest the homeowner, and charge him with attempted 2nd degree murder.

Why would they do that? Could it be because the homeowner looks like this.



And the teenager looks like this?




After all, the police admit the teenager climbed over a locked gate, so he was obviously just taking a shortcut.

It's probably because shooting people because you're ascared of them is against the law, even in the dystopic shithole that is Louisiana.

You are welcome to pretend it's because he's white, if the truth is too much for you.

You are truly stupid.

Shooting someone because they made you afraid for your life and or limb is very legal.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Since i have New York Common Law Citizenship and the allodial title to my property, I am not subject to any of New York's statutes.

Good luck with that argument in a court of law.

 

[Connery]

Threads merged

 

[Sunshine]

14 year old Marshall Coulter did not just hop over Merritt Landry's wrought iron fence like the media is telling us. He had to have jumped up onto it and climbed over it...............................like a monkey.

Here it would not be considered a break in unless he was in the house. Stand your ground is based upon 'reasonable fear.' If one were to be in the house and the intruder in the lawn, even though he climbed the fence, it would be hard to prove reasonable fear. If the intruder comes in the house, the castle doctrine presumes he is there to do you harm and you can use deadly force.

It seems that Louisiana does have some type of SYG law, but not knowing the facts, I can't really extrapolate how it would apply in this case. I'm guessing Mr. Homeowner is in a heap o' trouble.

Yes Louisiana has 'Stand Your Ground' laws. In their 'Stand Your Ground' law for example, you can be like inside a 7-11 and be standing there and see a person point a gun or knife at the clerk behind the counter threatening him and if you happen to be armed, the SYG law will allow you to pull out your weapon and shoot the guy even though you are not the one being threatened at the time.

Louisiana criminal code RS 14:20 for ]Stand Your Ground' Justifiable Homicide reads:

[” 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 deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

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 deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.”]

Now here is Louisiana Self Defense Law:

Louisiana Self Defense Law

What this part of the Justifiable Homicide law essentially means is that if you are not doing anything illegal and are acting in self defense, you are not required to retreat before using deadly force. However, you and your Louisiana criminal defense attorney will also need to prove that you were in fact acting in self defense. The specific Louisiana law for self defense includes the following:


“When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.”



Here is another case I found.

Bystander with Carry Permit Shoots and Kills Suspect With Headshot Who Was Attacking a Police Officer in Baton Rouge
Bystander with Carry Permit Shoots and Kills Suspect With Headshot Who Was Attacking a Police Officer in Baton Rouge

The problem arises here because it doesn't sound like the intruder actually ever confronted the homeowner, but was merely trespassing or maybe even criminal trespassing. Trespass in and of itself would not invoke reasonable fear, particularly if you were inside your house and the perp was outside. This is not a duplicate scenario with the Zimmerman case.

 

[Sunshine]

The perp climbed a fence to access the man's property dumbass. What do you think he was doing there? Looking for his Skittles?

14 year old Marshall Coulter did not just hop over Merritt Landry's wrought iron fence like the media is telling us. He had to have jumped up onto it and climbed over it...............................like a monkey.

Funny how a picture can change a lot of things. I was picturing a large front yard and the kid jumping the fence and being quite a way away. This picture puts the whole story in a different light.

Immie

Unless the homeowner were outside the home, I don't really see any rationale for 'reasonable fear.' Then SYG would be justified. But if he were in the house, the perp out in the yard, even a small yard Mr. Homeowner was never in any danger. If the perp broke into the house, though, that would be a horse of a different color.

 

[Sunshine]

Hazouri, who owns property near Landry's house, 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...

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.

If the kid is riding bikes with his friend, at a quarter to TWO IN THE MORNING, why is he hopping fences into people's yards? There's something not quite right with the story we're getting...

Based on what we're being told, the kid was shot for trespassing, a bit harsh for the 21st century, but then again, we are talking about New Orleans. The third deadliest city in the U.S. last year, how was the homeowner to know this kid's intentions? He'd been a victim of burglaries a couple of times before... In the wee hours of the morning, how was he to know the kid was a kid? The kid is awaiting trial for burglary, history would lead one to think he was about to commit another.

I don't know... You hate to see a kid lose his future for simple trespassing, but, if you look at the facts we've been provided honestly, you can see where the homeowner's mind was during the encounter.

Another instance of negligent parents, no doubt. But trespassing is not a capital offense. He likely was going to break in. Too bad Mr. Homeowner didn't let that play through. He would likely be entirely in the clear.

 

[Sunshine]

So, the good news is, seems like there is a common ground here; no matter if you are a republican or a democrat, you can shoot anything that walks in to your house, including your inlaws...

In some states, I believe Oregon being one, you have to retreat to the farthest corner of your house before you can use deadly force. In most states the person you shoot must be a stranger to you. If you shot a family member or an in law you would be in deep do do.

 

[Sunshine]

Funny how a picture can change a lot of things. I was picturing a large front yard and the kid jumping the fence and being quite a way away. This picture puts the whole story in a different light.

Immie

Yes the pictures can change everything in a new perspective. If you've ever been to New Orleans neighborhoods, the homes are real close together and the driveways are small and gated. Many driveways are enclosed to make courtyards. Here is another picture of the yard after you've walked through he gate.

Well, I have been there, if driving through it on I-10 headed from California to Tampa counts as being there. It has been 20 years and even though I keep saying we should go to New Orleans, I never quite made it back.

Immie

I've been there once. Check it out. Check it off. I've seen it, enjoyed it, have no desire to go back.

 

[Sunshine]

Zimmerman Redux, Merritt Landry | Louisiana Self-defense - Downtrend.com

Hazouri reports that Landry, who has a baby daughter and whose wife is pregnant, believed that the victim was trying to break into his house. “All I know is that Merritt had told his family that he had said: ‘Freeze!’ and it looked like the guy turned at him and had his hand on his hip,” Hazouri reported.

The rear door of Merritt Landry’s home, and the driveway where car was parked, when Landry came upon intruder at 2:00AM.

Landry has been charged with attempted second degree murder. His bond was set to $10,000; he posted bond late Friday afternoon. Landry works for the City of New Orleans as a building inspector. The city says he has been placed on emergency suspension without pay pending the outcome of this case.

This is getting ridiculous. The prosecutor is going after this man only because he is a white man who killed a black man, and had it been a black man who killed that young man no one would have said shit.

Do people realize what this will lead to if it keeps up?

I can see how this could happen. 1:44 Am guys at home with pregnant wife and kid. Dog starts barking,somebody jumps over an Iron fence into a yard so you automatacally assume he is up to no good and he is ready to confront you cause your car is there and he knows your home. You yell freeze and the guy turns with his hand on his hip, might have a gun. It's dark,it's 1:44 am, you just woke up,all kids should be in bed right? So Landry fires thinking he's about to become a victim himself.

People really responsible for this are the parents. At 14 that kid should have been home safely tucked in bed, not wandering the streets.

Awwwwww, but he be a guuut boi! Just as his mamma.

 

[Sunshine]

The big difference between this case and Zimmerman is that Landry was not getting his head pounded into the concrete.

Actually, the bigger difference is Mr. Homeowner was inside the house. The perp was in the lawn.

 

[Sunshine]

What's the difference between a locked gate and a locked door?

One is to the lawn, the other is to the house.

 

[Immanuel]

14 year old Marshall Coulter did not just hop over Merritt Landry's wrought iron fence like the media is telling us. He had to have jumped up onto it and climbed over it...............................like a monkey.

Funny how a picture can change a lot of things. I was picturing a large front yard and the kid jumping the fence and being quite a way away. This picture puts the whole story in a different light.

Immie

Unless the homeowner were outside the home, I don't really see any rationale for 'reasonable fear.' Then SYG would be justified. But if he were in the house, the perp out in the yard, even a small yard Mr. Homeowner was never in any danger. If the perp broke into the house, though, that would be a horse of a different color.

Not knowing the situation, here is what I see:

To the left of the picture is what appears to be the front door and a porch. If the shooter were standing at his door and the kid were standing at the steps of the porch, then there is the possibility, that they were within a step or two of each other. That is close enough that even if the kid only had a knife there was the potential for a life threatening confrontation. I am not claiming justification, just pointing out that the situation is different than what I had originally envisioned.

There is 80 feet between my front door and the street. For some reason when I scanned the story I was thinking there was some distance between the homeowner and the kid. That picture says differently.

Immie

 

[Sunshine]

Funny how a picture can change a lot of things. I was picturing a large front yard and the kid jumping the fence and being quite a way away. This picture puts the whole story in a different light.

Immie

Unless the homeowner were outside the home, I don't really see any rationale for 'reasonable fear.' Then SYG would be justified. But if he were in the house, the perp out in the yard, even a small yard Mr. Homeowner was never in any danger. If the perp broke into the house, though, that would be a horse of a different color.

Not knowing the situation, here is what I see:

To the left of the picture is what appears to be the front door and a porch. If the shooter were standing at his door and the kid were standing at the steps of the porch, then there is the possibility, that they were within a step or two of each other. That is close enough that even if the kid only had a knife there was the potential for a life threatening confrontation. I am not claiming justification, just pointing out that the situation is different than what I had originally envisioned.

There is 80 feet between my front door and the street. For some reason when I scanned the story I was thinking there was some distance between the homeowner and the kid. That picture says differently.

Immie

If the homeowner was inside the house and the perp is outside, then there is a problem proving 'reasonable fear.' He didn't have to open the door. Probably shouldn't have, actually. The law presumes when a person breaks into your home he is there to do you harm. You don't have to prove reasonable fear. Outside your home, you have to prove reasonable fear. He would have been better to have waited until the perp broke in, then shot him, even if it meant he had to replace the carpet.

This case will not come out well for Mr. Homeowner.

 

[Immanuel]

Unless the homeowner were outside the home, I don't really see any rationale for 'reasonable fear.' Then SYG would be justified. But if he were in the house, the perp out in the yard, even a small yard Mr. Homeowner was never in any danger. If the perp broke into the house, though, that would be a horse of a different color.

Not knowing the situation, here is what I see:

To the left of the picture is what appears to be the front door and a porch. If the shooter were standing at his door and the kid were standing at the steps of the porch, then there is the possibility, that they were within a step or two of each other. That is close enough that even if the kid only had a knife there was the potential for a life threatening confrontation. I am not claiming justification, just pointing out that the situation is different than what I had originally envisioned.

There is 80 feet between my front door and the street. For some reason when I scanned the story I was thinking there was some distance between the homeowner and the kid. That picture says differently.

Immie

If the homeowner was inside the house and the perp is outside, then there is a problem proving 'reasonable fear.' He didn't have to open the door. Probably shouldn't have, actually. The law presumes when a person breaks into your home he is there to do you harm. You don't have to prove reasonable fear. Outside your home, you have to prove reasonable fear. He would have been better to have waited until the perp broke in, then shot him, even if it meant he had to replace the carpet.

This case will not come out well for Mr. Homeowner.

You won't and are not getting an argument from me. I agree.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I was in college, I lived in an old Victorian house that was converted into flats. One night I was alone in my apartment, in my room reading, and heard someone come into the apartment. My bedroom door was closed. The person made wandering around the apartment noises, in the kitchen and bathroom. It didn't sound right to me, so I got up and locked my bedroom door. A little later there was some kind of scratching on my door and then it stopped and I could hear someone going into my roommate's room. It was a long time ago and I didn't have a cell phone. When it got quiet, I snuck a look out my door, saw nothing, and ran out and downstairs to the apartment below me. I asked the woman there to call the police. We waited in her apartment and heard more noises upstairs in my apartment. When they came, they discovered a man in my roommates bedroom. He was blind drunk and turned out to be the guy who lived on the top floor. He had crawled into our apartment through an open window and thought he was in his own apartment because he was so drunk. If I'd had a gun, would it have been 'okay' by you pro gun people for me to kill him instead of calling the police? Shooting first and askinq questions later is not okay in my book. This kid who got into someone's yard may well have just been high on something. Why you all want to blow someone away so badly is beyond understanding.

You didn't have a problem calling the cops on him, did you? Shouldn't you have checked with him first to see if he happened to be a drunk neighbor?

 

[Katzndogz]

The big difference between this case and Zimmerman is that Landry was not getting his head pounded into the concrete.

Actually, the bigger difference is Mr. Homeowner was inside the house. The perp was in the lawn.

Right up to the "I said freeze and he went for his waistband" point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is 2AM and a teenager, quite obviously, just wants to get home when he is shot by an armed homeowner for climbing over the locked gate protecting his driveway.



The homeowner has a pregnant wife and a child, and the teenager broke the law by scaling his fence. What do the police do when they arrive?

Arrest the homeowner, and charge him with attempted 2nd degree murder.

Why would they do that? Could it be because the homeowner looks like this.



And the teenager looks like this?




After all, the police admit the teenager climbed over a locked gate, so he was obviously just taking a shortcut.

It's probably because shooting people because you're ascared of them is against the law, even in the dystopic shithole that is Louisiana.

You are welcome to pretend it's because he's white, if the truth is too much for you.

FYI, second degree murder in Louisiana is pretty well defined.

1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; or
(2) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, assault by drive-by shooting, armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, simple robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, or terrorism, even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.
(3) When the offender unlawfully distributes or dispenses a controlled dangerous substance listed in Schedules I through V of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law*, or any combination thereof, which is the direct cause of the death of the recipient who ingested or consumed the controlled dangerous substance.
(4) When the offender unlawfully distributes or dispenses a controlled dangerous substance listed in Schedules I through V of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law*, or any combination thereof, to another who subsequently distributes or dispenses such controlled dangerous substance which is the direct cause of the death of the person who ingested or consumed the controlled dangerous substance.

Law of Self Defense ? LA §30.1. Second degree murder

Section 2-4 are obviously out the window here, so the state has to prove that the homeowner specifically intended to cause death or great bodily harm to the guy that had jumped over his fence.

Ain't gonna happen.

Self defense law in Louisiana is also pretty well defined.

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.

Law of Self Defense ? LA §19. Use of force or violence in defense

As is Justifiable Homicide.

A. A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
(4)
(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
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 deadly force 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 deadly force 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 deadly force 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 deadly force 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 deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Law of Self Defense ? LA §20. Justifiable homicide

At this point I see no reason why Landry should be charged. Care to point out why I am wrong using specific analysis of the applicable laws?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here it would not be considered a break in unless he was in the house. Stand your ground is based upon 'reasonable fear.' If one were to be in the house and the intruder in the lawn, even though he climbed the fence, it would be hard to prove reasonable fear. If the intruder comes in the house, the castle doctrine presumes he is there to do you harm and you can use deadly force.

It seems that Louisiana does have some type of SYG law, but not knowing the facts, I can't really extrapolate how it would apply in this case. I'm guessing Mr. Homeowner is in a heap o' trouble.

Yes Louisiana has 'Stand Your Ground' laws. In their 'Stand Your Ground' law for example, you can be like inside a 7-11 and be standing there and see a person point a gun or knife at the clerk behind the counter threatening him and if you happen to be armed, the SYG law will allow you to pull out your weapon and shoot the guy even though you are not the one being threatened at the time.

Louisiana criminal code RS 14:20 for ]Stand Your Ground' Justifiable Homicide reads:

[” 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 deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

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 deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.”]

Now here is Louisiana Self Defense Law:

Louisiana Self Defense Law

What this part of the Justifiable Homicide law essentially means is that if you are not doing anything illegal and are acting in self defense, you are not required to retreat before using deadly force. However, you and your Louisiana criminal defense attorney will also need to prove that you were in fact acting in self defense. The specific Louisiana law for self defense includes the following:


“When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.”



Here is another case I found.

Bystander with Carry Permit Shoots and Kills Suspect With Headshot Who Was Attacking a Police Officer in Baton Rouge
Bystander with Carry Permit Shoots and Kills Suspect With Headshot Who Was Attacking a Police Officer in Baton Rouge

The problem arises here because it doesn't sound like the intruder actually ever confronted the homeowner, but was merely trespassing or maybe even criminal trespassing. Trespass in and of itself would not invoke reasonable fear, particularly if you were inside your house and the perp was outside. This is not a duplicate scenario with the Zimmerman case.

He was trespassing past a locked gate that gave him access to the Landry's back door.