14 yr old shot from 30 ft away;shooter claims Stand Your Ground (1 Viewer)

[Witz]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Murder is an unjustified homicide. Sounds like you think it's justified if you think he should be acquitted.

Not quite so black and white as that. I think he will be acquitted and I understand why he will be acquitted based upon the law and the facts as we understand them. Particularly as he is the only eye witness so there is no way to dispute his contention that the child made a threatening gesture.

But that doesn't mean that I think it was a justified homicide.

+1

I don't necessarily think the homeowner is a liar, but I would also like to see all the facts come into play. To me, this was totally avoidable and unnecessary. There were so many options which appeared available to this guy instead of shooting. All he had to do was turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away and then gone in and called the police.

Turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away? You mean leave the kid standing at his back door while he left his yard and went around the house to go inside, hoping the kid left? Are you kidding me? He's supposed to leave this kid standing next to his doorway, with his wife and kid inside, and run around his house?

Back up, yell out that you're caling the cops and go back inside. Whoever is out front is going to run away. If they don't, you're inside your house by that time and can always blast away from cover while he bashes down your door. The later event is not going to happen as the person on your property is going to turn tail and take off.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool when dissecting what happened or could have happened (not just in this particular case but in all situations in life).

He did yell at the individual in his yard and based on what we know currently, the individual didn't start running away when yelled at but rather faced the shooter and made a motion to his waistband.

 

[matttyl]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.

Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Could he have known at the time the intruder on his property was 14? Nope.

Could he have known at the time the intruder was armed or not? Nope.

Could he have known at the time the intentions of the intruder on his property at 2 AM? Nope.

It's extremely sad that a 14 year old was shot, no doubt. But as long as we're dealing with "hypotheticals", would you feel differently had the intruder been 24, or 34, or 44? It obviously would no longer be "murder of an unarmed CHILD" at that point. What if the intruder did have a weapon, even something as simple as a screwdriver? The homeowner couldn't have known either at the time. You can't take the information that we do know now and use it for what the homeowner should have known before the trigger was pulled.

Again, I put far more blame on the parents of the 14 year old not knowing where their child is at 2 AM who's had issues with burglary before (as long as we're using what "should be known") than I do with the homeowner legally defending his home from an obvious threat.

 

[kentric]

Kentric, that is a reasonable response and if the homeowner had taken it, there would have been no shooting. But just because your alternative seems preferable after the fact, does that mean we should blame Landry for making the choice he did? Does that mean he is guilty of a crime? I don't think it does.

If the events occured as the HO indicated, then I think he will be proven innocent. I also know that there is no certainty in a jury decision and that they will consider whether it could have been prevented, what his rationale was and how old the kid was (although I agree that this shouldn't have a bearing if the HO did in fact believe he was being drawn on). As to blaming Landry for his actions, I do. This could have been easily avoided (yes, the 14 y.o. could have also avoided it by not breaking into Landry's yard). Just because I personally believe Landry screwed up doesn't mean I believe he will be convicted of a crime. I would like to see more evidence/details though.

 

[Chaka]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Murder is an unjustified homicide. Sounds like you think it's justified if you think he should be acquitted.

Not quite so black and white as that. I think he will be acquitted and I understand why he will be acquitted based upon the law and the facts as we understand them. Particularly as he is the only eye witness so there is no way to dispute his contention that the child made a threatening gesture.

But that doesn't mean that I think it was a justified homicide.

You said he probably should be acquitted based on the facts, but you don't think it's justified.

Got it.

What's not to understand? The law will likely protect the shooter, that doesn't mean I can't think he got away with murder.

OJ, Zimmerman, Condit, the Ramseys etc. people get away with murder all the time.

 

[Chaka]

I find it hard to fathom that people assume that the homeowner is a liar and a murderer here, when the person shot is described by his own family as a career criminal by age 14 who's committed multiple thefts and burglaries and who left his house to take out the trash, according to his mother, at 10 pm and just never came back in, and was actively committing a crime at the time he was shot. Why is the immediate assumption "well, that homeowner sure made some bad decisions!" When there are perfectly reasonable and rational reasons for him to have done what he did, including his own story of what happened?

Can't it be both?

And I never called the shooter a liar.

Do you believe him that he saw the kid reach toward his waistband? Because if you do, then this seems like a pretty strong justification for firing a gun. And if you don't, you think he's lying.

No it doesn't. It is possible that the shooter believes something that didn't actually happen. Memory is subjective, add in a 2:00am time frame and a tense situation and his mind could tell him that the kid was riding a pink elephant and he would believe it at the time.

 

[BroadwayG]

Hindsight is a wonderful tool when dissecting what happened or could have happened (not just in this particular case but in all situations in life).

He did yell at the individual in his yard and based on what we know currently, the individual didn't start running away when yelled at but rather faced the shooter and made a motion to his waistband.

Him yelling and the motion to his waistband could be made up. He could have just assassinated a trespasser for all we know.

 

[kentric]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Murder is an unjustified homicide. Sounds like you think it's justified if you think he should be acquitted.

Not quite so black and white as that. I think he will be acquitted and I understand why he will be acquitted based upon the law and the facts as we understand them. Particularly as he is the only eye witness so there is no way to dispute his contention that the child made a threatening gesture.

But that doesn't mean that I think it was a justified homicide.

+1

I don't necessarily think the homeowner is a liar, but I would also like to see all the facts come into play. To me, this was totally avoidable and unnecessary. There were so many options which appeared available to this guy instead of shooting. All he had to do was turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away and then gone in and called the police.

Turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away? You mean leave the kid standing at his back door while he left his yard and went around the house to go inside, hoping the kid left? Are you kidding me? He's supposed to leave this kid standing next to his doorway, with his wife and kid inside, and run around his house?

Back up, yell out that you're caling the cops and go back inside. Whoever is out front is going to run away. If they don't, you're inside your house by that time and can always blast away from cover while he bashes down your door. The later event is not going to happen as the person on your property is going to turn tail and take off.

Except that you're on the opposite side of the house from the door he's standing next to even once you get in, and your wife and kids are in there.

But then I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds.

 

[Witz]

Hindsight is a wonderful tool when dissecting what happened or could have happened (not just in this particular case but in all situations in life).

He did yell at the individual in his yard and based on what we know currently, the individual didn't start running away when yelled at but rather faced the shooter and made a motion to his waistband.

Him yelling and the motion to his waistband could be made up. He could have just assassinated a trespasser for all we know.

Never really thought of the assassination angle. You've given us all something more to think about.

 

[matttyl]

The odds of hitting a person at 2 AM in the morning and causing death are likely de minimis, whereas you have a 14 y.o. who gets shot in the head. Even though the 14 y.o. was up to no good, I'd rather take chances with the shot in the air (even though I don't think it was necessary).

I'm not willing to put ANYONE else in danger, no matter how small the chance - AND allow the criminal on my property more time to make a move for a weapon that I don't if he's carrying or not. The kid was apparently only 30 feet away, 10 yards. A person can cover that distance from a standstill in 1.5 seconds. You willing to take that risk and allow him that time by aiming in the air, firing, allowing the gun to cycle, and re-aim at him? I'm not.

What happens if you shoot at the kid and miss?

I don't entertain hypotheticals, the world is vexing enough as it is.

Of course you entertain hypotheticals. This thread is little more than a series of hypotheticals many of which you have entertained.

This kid jumped the shooter's fence, walked past the back door and was apparently standing near the shooter's car when he was shot.

Those are really the only facts we have.

So this guy still shot an unarmed kid, right?

If you shoot at the kid and miss, it's no different than a warning shot in the air. If he continues to reach for his waistband or continues to approach you, you shoot again, and again if needed.

Yes he shot an unarmed kid, and it's horribly sad. But at the time the shooter didn't know he was unarmed, and very possibly didn't know it was a kid. Neither of those things are relevant to me. There is a person on my property, who only got there by hopping a fence that's there to keep people out, at 2 in the morning, in a very crime heavy neighborhood, and you've told him to freeze. He didn't. He should have.

Shooting someone for presenting a clear and present danger is one thing but shooting a kid just for being on your property, regardless of the time of day, is entirely different.

Apparently the kid walked past the back door to get to the car, what makes anyone think that he would then move on to the house? Don't burglars target homes during the day when people are less likely to be home? Isn't the logical conclusion that he was just going to try and steal something from the car or the car itself? Is that a clear and present danger? Killing someone to protect yourself is one thing but is it okay to kill someone to protect stuff? Are we good with that?

Reading Henry's depiction of accounts and looking at the picture, the owner would have no problem watching the kid from the house, was it necessary to confront him (I agree that when making the decision to confront you should absolutely have your gun)? Wouldn't calling the police and waiting inside with your gun while watching the kid be the more prudent choice? That is unless we are alright with killing people over stuff. If the kid approaches the back door or any of the windows you can make the decision to shoot but going out to confront only increased the possibility of someone getting hurt or killed. Poor decision by the kid for jumping the fence in the first place (and I am sure he will be found completely at fault when the dust settles) but the shooter also made many poor decisions.

The homeowner has no obligation to avoid confrontation or hide under the bed and call the police. That's the entire concept behind the castle doctrine. You might have done something different, I might have done something differently, but that's our choice, just as this was him. Call him a POS who was itching to kill someone if you want, but he's well within his legal rights (assuming the facts here are true, etc. etc.).

As to coming up with the most logical reason as to what the kid is doing, none of that matters. Again, the homeowner is under no obligation to try and give him the benefit of the doubt. All that matters is he's trespassing in the middle of the night, and he reached for his waistband after being told to freeze (allegedly).

Hiding under the bed was not his only other option and I didn't suggest it was. Castle doctrine is what will likely make his actions legal but it won't make them right.

No, the other "option" you gave was to shoot a warning shot into the air of a populated city with "dozens/hundreds" of people very likely still in the open at that time of night within a mile of where he stood. You keep giving these "options", but I'm curious to know what YOU would have done personally - and please do do without using any knowledge we know now, but only with the knowledge the homeowner could have known at the time.

 

[kentric]

Hindsight is a wonderful tool when dissecting what happened or could have happened (not just in this particular case but in all situations in life).

He did yell at the individual in his yard and based on what we know currently, the individual didn't start running away when yelled at but rather faced the shooter and made a motion to his waistband.

From what I've read, the kid couldn't have easily run away. He would have had to run past the homeowner. As to the movement toward the waistband, I think there's a possibility that this was fabricated. I say this for the same reason I thought Zimmerman embellished his claims by indicating that Trayvon Martin told him, "I'm gonna kill you" (or "you're going to die tonight" - not sure which TM was purported to have said). I just don't see a reason why the 14 y.o. would have reached down for his pants. I previously speculated that perhaps he was bluffing the homeowner, trying to show the HO that he had a gun so leave him be. Perhaps he was one of those kids who wears his pants by his thighs and was going to pull them up so he could run. I doubt either is likely and that is what gets me a bit suspicious as to the HO's claim.

Unlike Z though, I still believe almost all of his story and that the "I'm gonna kill you" embellishment wouldn't have a bearing on his being proven guilty. In this case, if the kid did not go for his waistband, its attempted murder with intent. It is therefore much more relevant to the case.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Murder is an unjustified homicide. Sounds like you think it's justified if you think he should be acquitted.

Not quite so black and white as that. I think he will be acquitted and I understand why he will be acquitted based upon the law and the facts as we understand them. Particularly as he is the only eye witness so there is no way to dispute his contention that the child made a threatening gesture.

But that doesn't mean that I think it was a justified homicide.

+1

I don't necessarily think the homeowner is a liar, but I would also like to see all the facts come into play. To me, this was totally avoidable and unnecessary. There were so many options which appeared available to this guy instead of shooting. All he had to do was turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away and then gone in and called the police.

Turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away? You mean leave the kid standing at his back door while he left his yard and went around the house to go inside, hoping the kid left? Are you kidding me? He's supposed to leave this kid standing next to his doorway, with his wife and kid inside, and run around his house?

Back up, yell out that you're caling the cops and go back inside. Whoever is out front is going to run away. If they don't, you're inside your house by that time and can always blast away from cover while he bashes down your door. The later event is not going to happen as the person on your property is going to turn tail and take off.

Except that you're on the opposite side of the house from the door he's standing next to even once you get in, and your wife and kids are in there.

But then I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds.

Why not?

Go to 1:20 in this video and watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhscToHlWNM

Or watch this one from the beginning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR3SiLnE-Nw

 

[[icon]]

But then I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds.

Don't want to get mired in the robbery angle because this incident stopped having anything to do with a robbery as soon as the homeowner and the kid met... but this statement is categorically untrue. Most breakins nowadays are "kick ins" which take advantage of weak door framework to render deadlocks useless. One kick and the door flies in. takes less than a second and it doesn't matter if your lock and deadlock are both engaged.

Hence why I've got a steel kickplate re-enforcement ($100) in my framework of my front door, as well as keeping my storm door locked. Not break-in proof but certainly enough of a PITA that they'll move on to the next house.

 

[[icon]]

Why not?


Go to 1:20 in this video and watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhscToHlWNM

Or watch this one from the beginning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR3SiLnE-Nw

Beat me to the punch.

Whole lot of people in here talking like they know whats up... when they just don't.

ETA: This is purely to address that other statement... but again, this stopped being about a robbery as soon as the two men met. IMO The kid was shot because the shooter felt like he was going for a weapon (and become a threat to him and his family)...not because he was concerned he was going to turn and kick in his door and take his TV.

 

[Chaka]

No, the other "option" you gave was to shoot a warning shot into the air of a populated city with "dozens/hundreds" of people very likely still in the open at that time of night within a mile of where he stood. You keep giving these "options", but I'm curious to know what YOU would have done personally - and please do do without using any knowledge we know now, but only with the knowledge the homeowner could have known at the time.

I never said he should have fired a warning shot I just presented the option to minimize the threat to innocent life if he did fire the warning shot big difference. You can play the Bourbon street card, but you said it is over a mile away so I am going to call that defense just as idiotic as your belief in firing straight in the air in the first place (and the notion that it has to be at a perfect 90 degree angle to minimize the risk is incorrect as well).

How about calling the police while watching the kid, with gun in hand of course, from behind the door in the photo Henry provided? Would that have been a reasonable option?

 

[[icon]]

How about calling the police while watching the kid, with gun in hand of course, from behind the door in the photo Henry provided? Would that have been a reasonable option?

You think that kid would have sat there for 45mins to an hour that it takes for police to respond in that neighborhood?

How was your lunch with the sugar plum fairy and cinderella yesterday?

 

[ATC1]

It will be interesting to see if the kid was wearing baggy pants. I can reasonably believe that the kid tried to pull his pants up so he can run. Which as a result I can not fault the guy for firing.

Lesson #2. If you are going to rob a house leave the baggy pants at home so you can take off without needing to pull them up.

 

[Chaka]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Murder is an unjustified homicide. Sounds like you think it's justified if you think he should be acquitted.

Not quite so black and white as that. I think he will be acquitted and I understand why he will be acquitted based upon the law and the facts as we understand them. Particularly as he is the only eye witness so there is no way to dispute his contention that the child made a threatening gesture.

But that doesn't mean that I think it was a justified homicide.

+1

I don't necessarily think the homeowner is a liar, but I would also like to see all the facts come into play. To me, this was totally avoidable and unnecessary. There were so many options which appeared available to this guy instead of shooting. All he had to do was turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away and then gone in and called the police.

Turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away? You mean leave the kid standing at his back door while he left his yard and went around the house to go inside, hoping the kid left? Are you kidding me? He's supposed to leave this kid standing next to his doorway, with his wife and kid inside, and run around his house?

Back up, yell out that you're caling the cops and go back inside. Whoever is out front is going to run away. If they don't, you're inside your house by that time and can always blast away from cover while he bashes down your door. The later event is not going to happen as the person on your property is going to turn tail and take off.

Except that you're on the opposite side of the house from the door he's standing next to even once you get in, and your wife and kids are in there.

But then I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds.

Why not?

Go to 1:20 in this video and watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhscToHlWNM

Or watch this one from the beginning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR3SiLnE-Nw

Henry I gladly concede that this will turn out to be a "clean kill" in the eyes of the law. But would you please stop with the notion that the kid would have broken into the house after being confronted. That's patently ridiculous. I would also like you to acknowledge that even if not confronted breaking into the house was not a likely scenario. Most burglaries happen during the day time when homeowners are most likely out of the house.

The kid was going to jack the car (either the whole thing or its contents), you can claim that we don't know that and blah blah blah but anyone with two brain cells that don't fight can clearly see that was the kids end game.

 

[[icon]]

The kid was going to jack the car (either the whole thing or its contents), you can claim that we don't know that and blah blah blah but anyone with two brain cells that don't fight can clearly see that was the kids end game.

Well now that we know all this for a fact, I feel like we can move on.

 

[Chaka]

How about calling the police while watching the kid, with gun in hand of course, from behind the door in the photo Henry provided? Would that have been a reasonable option?

You think that kid would have sat there for 45mins to an hour that it takes for police to respond in that neighborhood?

How was your lunch with the sugar plum fairy and cinderella yesterday?

Not sure what your point is. From that vantage point the shooter was protecting his family, which is the shooter's primary responsibility, not catching and killing bad guys. It's also what everyone in here seems to be most concerned with. From that vantage point he could still have his gun trained on the kid before yelling at him and it would also provide him more cover from the physical barricade and the kid would really have no idea where to shoot in case the worst case scenario played out.

Is killing to protect property okay?

And when did you start with insults as your go to move? You were a lot cooler when you were the jeep guy/apple wonk.

 

[kentric]

How about calling the police while watching the kid, with gun in hand of course, from behind the door in the photo Henry provided? Would that have been a reasonable option?

You think that kid would have sat there for 45mins to an hour that it takes for police to respond in that neighborhood?

How was your lunch with the sugar plum fairy and cinderella yesterday?

So its better to shoot someone in the head than to let them get away with a prospective robbery?

 

[[icon]]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

THE GUY IS ON RECORD AS HAVING SEEN THE KID REACHING FOR HIS WAISTLINE (FOR A GUN). This is a self defense case. Believe it or not, that's up to the jury to decide. But this isn't about "He's breaking into my car so I'm going to shoot him.

Jesus, some of you are denser than five year old fruitcake.

 

[ATC1]

Henry I gladly concede that this will turn out to be a "clean kill" in the eyes of the law. But would you please stop with the notion that the kid would have broken into the house after being confronted. That's patently ridiculous. I would also like you to acknowledge that even if not confronted breaking into the house was not a likely scenario. Most burglaries happen during the day time when homeowners are most likely out of the house.


The kid was going to jack the car (either the whole thing or its contents), you can claim that we don't know that and blah blah blah but anyone with two brain cells that don't fight can clearly see that was the kids end game.

I don't know about that. The kid was already in trouble with the law for breaking into houses. He may become violent when he knows someone has seen his face or if he is held until police arrive.

 

[[icon]]

So its better to shoot someone in the head than to let them get away with a prospective robbery?

HTH

 

[kentric]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Murder is an unjustified homicide. Sounds like you think it's justified if you think he should be acquitted.

Not quite so black and white as that. I think he will be acquitted and I understand why he will be acquitted based upon the law and the facts as we understand them. Particularly as he is the only eye witness so there is no way to dispute his contention that the child made a threatening gesture.

But that doesn't mean that I think it was a justified homicide.

+1

I don't necessarily think the homeowner is a liar, but I would also like to see all the facts come into play. To me, this was totally avoidable and unnecessary. There were so many options which appeared available to this guy instead of shooting. All he had to do was turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away and then gone in and called the police.

Turn the corner of the house and let the kid run away? You mean leave the kid standing at his back door while he left his yard and went around the house to go inside, hoping the kid left? Are you kidding me? He's supposed to leave this kid standing next to his doorway, with his wife and kid inside, and run around his house?

Back up, yell out that you're caling the cops and go back inside. Whoever is out front is going to run away. If they don't, you're inside your house by that time and can always blast away from cover while he bashes down your door. The later event is not going to happen as the person on your property is going to turn tail and take off.

Except that you're on the opposite side of the house from the door he's standing next to even once you get in, and your wife and kids are in there.

But then I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds.

Why not?

Go to 1:20 in this video and watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhscToHlWNM

Or watch this one from the beginning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR3SiLnE-Nw

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

 

[kentric]

Henry I gladly concede that this will turn out to be a "clean kill" in the eyes of the law. But would you please stop with the notion that the kid would have broken into the house after being confronted. That's patently ridiculous. I would also like you to acknowledge that even if not confronted breaking into the house was not a likely scenario. Most burglaries happen during the day time when homeowners are most likely out of the house.


The kid was going to jack the car (either the whole thing or its contents), you can claim that we don't know that and blah blah blah but anyone with two brain cells that don't fight can clearly see that was the kids end game.

I don't know about that. The kid was already in trouble with the law for breaking into houses. He may become violent when he knows someone has seen his face or if he is held until police arrive.

He was a juevenile. Not like he's going to be put in jail for 10-20.

 

[kentric]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

THE GUY IS ON RECORD AS HAVING SEEN THE KID REACHING FOR HIS WAISTLINE (FOR A GUN). This is a self defense case. Believe it or not, that's up to the jury to decide. But this isn't about "He's breaking into my car so I'm going to shoot him.

Jesus, some of you are denser than five year old fruitcake.

Its called conjecture. If you don't want to read hypotheticals then stop coming in.

 

[Clifford]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

THE GUY IS ON RECORD AS HAVING SEEN THE KID REACHING FOR HIS WAISTLINE (FOR A GUN). This is a self defense case. Believe it or not, that's up to the jury to decide. But this isn't about "He's breaking into my car so I'm going to shoot him.

Jesus, some of you are denser than five year old fruitcake.

please provide link to the gun or homeowner saying he saw kid reach for a gun.

HO said kid made a move for his waist. That's all we have. HO never claimed to have a seen a gun or anything resembling a gun in kids possession, and police reports did not find any gun on the scene. Reading your posts I would assume police found a gun on the kid.

 

[[icon]]

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

As usual, you're out of touch.

1) Kick ins happen ALL the time when residents are home.

2) You don't have to be a grown man to kick in a door. As someone who's actually kicked in a door and felt how easily they fly open, I'll tell you that a 14yo boy of normal size would have no trouble kicking in a door.

But carry on with your baseless conjecture.

 

[[icon]]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

THE GUY IS ON RECORD AS HAVING SEEN THE KID REACHING FOR HIS WAISTLINE (FOR A GUN). This is a self defense case. Believe it or not, that's up to the jury to decide. But this isn't about "He's breaking into my car so I'm going to shoot him.

Jesus, some of you are denser than five year old fruitcake.

please provide link to the gun or homeowner saying he saw kid reach for a gun.

HO said kid made a move for his waist. That's all we have. HO never claimed to have a seen a gun or anything resembling a gun in kids possession, and police reports did not find any gun on the scene. Reading your posts I would assume police found a gun on the kid.

You are in a dark area rife with violent crime at 2am with a silhouette of a young man before you. You have a weapon trained on him and yell freeze. He reaches for his waistline.

At what point do you fire?

No dodging with "I would have never gone outside because I would have called the police and miraculously they would have shown up immediately (vs the 45-60 min response times consistent with that community"

In that situation. Right then and there. At what point do you pull the trigger?

 

[Henry Ford]

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

How much does the kid weigh? What sports did he play? How much force does this particular kid have behind his kicks?

And is this statement - "there's no way he would try"

different from this statement? "I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds."

It sure sounds different. Which one would you like to discuss?

 

[Clifford]

When I see something that says this figure can kill me from where he is standing, or he makes an aggressive move towards me.

Is this your way of retracting your reaching for a gun statement?

 

[Henry Ford]

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

And how about another video of someone who kicked in a back door, this time with people home?

http://millburn.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/woman-viciously-beaten-in-home-invasion-police-say

I don't have video of the actual kick-in. I do have video of what he did to the woman in front of her daughter. We've all seen it.

 

[Clifford]

Henry/Icon, don't mean this in a condescending way, because I hate when people do this, but both of you seem emotionally invested in that this guy made the right call to shoot this intruder. Do you feel that his right to do so, and whether or not he gets exonerated, impacts you personally? IOW, do you want to make sure you have the right to do the same in a similar situation? Would you have wanted to shoot this kid if he were on your property?

 

[[icon]]

When I see something that says this figure can kill me from where he is standing, or he makes an aggressive move towards me.

Is this your way of retracting your reaching for a gun statement?

In no way am I retracting anything. I put the "for a gun" in parenthesis for that reason (it's what was perceived by the owner).

So you would wait till you saw a gun? What if he was just pulling it out to throw it on the ground?

Would you wait till he pointed it at you? What if it wasn't loaded?

Would you wait till he fired a shot? What if he wasn't a good shot and you didn't need to worry?

I'll ask again. Specifically at what point do you fire?

This isn't the movies. If you wait till you see a gun, you're likely going to get shot. The guy lost the benefit of the doubt as soon as he jumped the 5' fence onto my property. He makes ANY motion that comes off as threatening when I yell freeze (and that includes reaching for his waistband), then i shoot. Thankfully I am backed by the law. You can disagree till your blue in the face and that's fine. But the law backs my stance, and for good reason.

 

[Clifford]

When I see something that says this figure can kill me from where he is standing, or he makes an aggressive move towards me.

Is this your way of retracting your reaching for a gun statement?

In no way am I retracting anything. I put the "for a gun" in parenthesis for that reason (it's what was perceived by the owner).

So you would wait till you saw a gun? What if he was just pulling it out to throw it on the ground?

Would you wait till he pointed it at you? What if it wasn't loaded?

Would you wait till he fired a shot? What if he wasn't a good shot and you didn't need to worry?

I'll ask again. Specifically at what point do you fire?

This isn't the movies. If you wait till you see a gun, you're likely going to get shot. The guy lost the benefit of the doubt as soon as he jumped the 5' fence onto my property. He makes ANY motion that comes off as threatening when I yell freeze (and that includes reaching for his waistband), then i shoot. Thankfully I am backed by the law. You can disagree till your blue in the face and that's fine. But the law backs my stance, and for good reason.

First of all you need to calm down.

Second, if you are going to keep insisting that the HO perceived a gun, I need a link before I answer anything else from you. Let's see it.

Here's the statement he gave: Landry told police that he approached the boy from his front yard. 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.

That is what the HO said, not that he saw or perceived a gun. Just that the kid "made a move."

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

So I'll need a link contradicting this.

 

[[icon]]

Henry/Icon, don't mean this in a condescending way, because I hate when people do this, but both of you seem emotionally invested in that this guy made the right call to shoot this intruder. Do you feel that his right to do so, and whether or not he gets exonerated, impacts you personally? IOW, do you want to make sure you have the right to do the same in a similar situation? Would you have wanted to shoot this kid if he were on your property?

I have very low tolerance levels for ignorance, so if I am vociferous in my objection to some of what is said in this thread, that is the reason.

I would never want to shoot anyone. Ever. However if I was in his shoes and I did see him reach for his waistline (like the record shows) then I would have pulled the trigger without hesitation. Thankfully In my city I would never have even been put in the back of a cruiser for it.

The only impact I see is our nations knee jerk reaction to pass poorly thought-out legislation in reaction to stuff like this. (see sandy hook / assault rifle ban attempts). Thankfully MOST of the time the overzealous NRA compensates for the overzealous Anti-Gun lobby and we achieve some semblance of balance.

 

[ATC1]

When I see something that says this figure can kill me from where he is standing, or he makes an aggressive move towards me.

Is this your way of retracting your reaching for a gun statement?

In no way am I retracting anything. I put the "for a gun" in parenthesis for that reason (it's what was perceived by the owner).

So you would wait till you saw a gun? What if he was just pulling it out to throw it on the ground?

Would you wait till he pointed it at you? What if it wasn't loaded?

Would you wait till he fired a shot? What if he wasn't a good shot and you didn't need to worry?

I'll ask again. Specifically at what point do you fire?

This isn't the movies. If you wait till you see a gun, you're likely going to get shot. The guy lost the benefit of the doubt as soon as he jumped the 5' fence onto my property. He makes ANY motion that comes off as threatening when I yell freeze (and that includes reaching for his waistband), then i shoot. Thankfully I am backed by the law. You can disagree till your blue in the face and that's fine. But the law backs my stance, and for good reason.

First of all you need to calm down.

Second, if you are going to keep insisting that the HO perceived a gun, I need a link before I answer anything else from you. Let's see it.

Intruder going to his waistband is not an indication that he "perceived" he had a gun?

 

[[icon]]

When I see something that says this figure can kill me from where he is standing, or he makes an aggressive move towards me.

Is this your way of retracting your reaching for a gun statement?

In no way am I retracting anything. I put the "for a gun" in parenthesis for that reason (it's what was perceived by the owner).

So you would wait till you saw a gun? What if he was just pulling it out to throw it on the ground?

Would you wait till he pointed it at you? What if it wasn't loaded?

Would you wait till he fired a shot? What if he wasn't a good shot and you didn't need to worry?

I'll ask again. Specifically at what point do you fire?

This isn't the movies. If you wait till you see a gun, you're likely going to get shot. The guy lost the benefit of the doubt as soon as he jumped the 5' fence onto my property. He makes ANY motion that comes off as threatening when I yell freeze (and that includes reaching for his waistband), then i shoot. Thankfully I am backed by the law. You can disagree till your blue in the face and that's fine. But the law backs my stance, and for good reason.

First of all you need to calm down.

Second, if you are going to keep insisting that the HO perceived a gun, I need a link before I answer anything else from you. Let's see it.

I'm perfectly calm man... I never said the homeowner said he saw a gun. Quit dodging.

 

[[icon]]

Intruder going to his waistband is not an indication that he "perceived" he had a gun?

Psssht. I'm sure he was just getting out some skittles as a peace offering.

 

[kentric]

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

How much does the kid weigh? What sports did he play? How much force does this particular kid have behind his kicks?

And is this statement - "there's no way he would try"

different from this statement? "I don't think someone is going to be able to break into a house in 3 seconds."

It sure sounds different. Which one would you like to discuss?

I'll discuss either or but conceding that a door can be kicked in, I still don't see this happening in the set of circumstances surrounding this case. The kid had already cased out the house and didn't bull rush the door. It was 2 AM in the morning, the car was at the house and in all likelihood the family was asleep in the house. If this kid was already caught burglarizing twice, he's had some experience. Plus, the potential for breaking in, snatching and running just wasn't there as the HO had yelled at the kid. Can you honestly say that in this scenario, that kid is going to try to break into the house? Is it possible? Yes. Probable? No way.

I'd also add that this kid was on his bike. That also indicates that this kid isn't likely to break into the house. I do however concede that the HO was likely not aware of this.

 

[matttyl]

No, the other "option" you gave was to shoot a warning shot into the air of a populated city with "dozens/hundreds" of people very likely still in the open at that time of night within a mile of where he stood. You keep giving these "options", but I'm curious to know what YOU would have done personally - and please do do without using any knowledge we know now, but only with the knowledge the homeowner could have known at the time.

I never said he should have fired a warning shot I just presented the option to minimize the threat to innocent life if he did fire the warning shot big difference. You can play the Bourbon street card, but you said it is over a mile away so I am going to call that defense just as idiotic as your belief in firing straight in the air in the first place (and the notion that it has to be at a perfect 90 degree angle to minimize the risk is incorrect as well).

How about calling the police while watching the kid, with gun in hand of course, from behind the door in the photo Henry provided? Would that have been a reasonable option?

In order of bolded-

Firing a shot into the air WOULD NOT minimize the threat to innocent life at all, it would increase the threat. And please don't call the kid in this "innocent", he was trespassing and very likely looking to burglarize something.

I did not say that, in fact (I'm not sure how to quote/paste it) at 1:40 PM yesterday I said "where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in America at that time?" Looking at a map, he's only 5 blocks from Bourbon street (maybe a quarter mile), and maybe half a mile from Jackson Square where I can personally tell you is very populated even at 2AM.

I never had that belief, I never said he should fire any warning shot. The entire premise of that is stupid, even you said so yourself.

I do not call the police every time my dog hears something outside. I don't want to waste their time for what is likely nothing. I see no problem with him going outside still on his own property to see what was causing the noise, and carrying a weapon during that time. How do you know he didn't look out the window initially and wasn't able to see anything, and then went outside to investigate further?

 

[[icon]]

at the "He couldn't have broken into the house" angle still being clung to by kentric.

 

[kentric]

Hindsight is a wonderful tool when dissecting what happened or could have happened (not just in this particular case but in all situations in life).

He did yell at the individual in his yard and based on what we know currently, the individual didn't start running away when yelled at but rather faced the shooter and made a motion to his waistband.

From what I've read, the kid couldn't have easily run away. He would have had to run past the homeowner. As to the movement toward the waistband, I think there's a possibility that this was fabricated. I say this for the same reason I thought Zimmerman embellished his claims by indicating that Trayvon Martin told him, "I'm gonna kill you" (or "you're going to die tonight" - not sure which TM was purported to have said). I just don't see a reason why the 14 y.o. would have reached down for his pants. I previously speculated that perhaps he was bluffing the homeowner, trying to show the HO that he had a gun so leave him be. Perhaps he was one of those kids who wears his pants by his thighs and was going to pull them up so he could run. I doubt either is likely and that is what gets me a bit suspicious as to the HO's claim.

Unlike Z though, I still believe almost all of his story and that the "I'm gonna kill you" embellishment wouldn't have a bearing on his being proven guilty. In this case, if the kid did not go for his waistband, its attempted murder with intent. It is therefore much more relevant to the case.

Icon/Henry - what are your views conerning the above?

 

[matttyl]

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

And you're saying that with the great benefit of hindsight. The homeowner couldn't have know that at the time.

 

[kentric]

at the "it wasn't burglary" angle still being clung to by kentric.

Where did I ever say this? He was there at 2 AM in the morning and jumped the fence. I think he was looking to loot the car of anything small (money/change, cell phone, gps) and ride away on his bike. I'm arguing that he wasn't likely to have been looking to break into the house (as home breakins are usually during the day when the intruder can determine whether someone is home or not - at night, with a car in the yard the HOs are likely asleep in bed) and that the intruder is even less likely to try to break in when he's been found out.

 

[kentric]

You notice something each of those have in common? They occured without the resident home and, it was a grown man doing the kicking. Say what you want, to me, there's no way that this kid would be trying to break into the house after the homeowner confronted him (with or without the gun).

And you're saying that with the great benefit of hindsight. The homeowner couldn't have know that at the time.

see 641.

 

[Chaka]

Firing a shot into the air WOULD NOT minimize the threat to innocent life at all, it would increase the threat.

No it would not. Not even remotely. With a hand gun a straight shot into the air (outdoors of course, none of that "person upstairs" thing) is significantly safer to innocent life than any shot on a non vertical trajectory. And by saying that I am not advocating any sort of warning shot. If you can't get past that we won't get much further.

Not that we will get any further if you do actually concede something.

 

[[icon]]

Icon/Henry - what are your views conerning the above?

I think you're injecting a gallon of hypothetical into a 12oz glass to support your preconceived (and ignorant) view.

 

[Chaka]

at the "it wasn't a burglary" angle still being clung to by kentric.

So it was a burglary? Is that a fact?

 

[Chaka]

Icon/Henry - what are your views conerning the above?

I think you're injecting a gallon of hypothetical into a 12oz glass to support your preconceived (and ignorant) view.

It's a good thing you are bringing such a clear, rational fact based analysis of the situation.