14 yr old shot from 30 ft away;shooter claims Stand Your Ground (2 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Doesn't matter the time. It is safe to assume the kid was looking to rob the house. But once the homeowner made himself known, this shouldn't have gone further than the kid running away.

And I imagine if the kid would have turned and ran (jumping back over the fence) he'd probably still be unharmed. However when the homeowner confronted him, he made a gesture that was perceived as as reaching for a place where people traditionally carry their firearm. And that is why he was shot.

So many people living in magical fantasy land like this took place at noon on the courthouse steps of Happyville, IN or something

He can't jump over the fence without running past the homeowner. It won't work.

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-27-at-1.41.26-PM.png

This is the house. The red one. To the right is another house - they sort of share a courtyard with a fence, which is right behind the photographer, bounded on the right by a house. Homeowner is standing, essentially, exactly where the picture is taken. You can see the back door.

Wasn't aware of that. Seems the homeowner was more dangerous than I originally thought. Not only does he look to take out a 14 y.o. kid, but he also puts his family or the family next door in danger by shooting toward their homes.

Keep working on it, you'll get there eventually.

To be fair, in a real world situation, there is no place you can fire a bullet that would be 100% safe but there is one option that dramatically reduces the risk of accidentally killing an innocent. I am sure you can figure out what that option is if you weren't taking so much time crafting insults rather than thinking it through. I am credit giving you more credit for intelligence than you saw fit to grant me.

Not sure why you take these things so personally.

Ohhhh, it's one of those Encyclopedia Brown riddles where he's supposed to shoot himself. Got it.

Nope 1) because there is a better option 2) presumably you, as the shooter in this situation, would qualify as an innocent and hurting innocents is what we are trying to avoid and 3) that would be quite stupid.

So, while he's reaching to his waistband, where would you recommend that the homeowner re-aim his gun in that photo to fire a warning shot which will not allow the bullet to hit an innocent?

Straight into the air, there is a decent margin of error off of a true 90 degree shot so you don't have to be perfect.

A bullet fired from a handgun will return to the earth at between 150-250 feet per second (200 FPS is the minimum velocity required to break the skin, bullets traveling up to 300 FPS have been known to not break the skin). Barring an extremely unlikely event of it landing in a person's eye or open mouth it will sting, maybe even draw a little blood but it will not kill you.

You may have missed the earlier discussion on this part. But I'll be sure to bring my t-square when I confront trespassers, to make sure I fire the bullet directly into the air like on Mythbusters. It shouldn't take long to square that up. And then we'll just hope the bullet doesn't come down at 300 fps and kill someone completely innocent.

Does your warning shot scenario involve an unlimited amount of time? Do you hit pause when he reaches for his waist, while you point the gun up, make sure it's fairly straight up, fire, and then re-aim, hoping that he wasn't reaching for the gun he's going to use to shoot you?

 

[kentric]

The appearance of the intruder (in terms of how big or old did he look, was he a young looking 14 or an older looking 14, etc) is irrelevant to this case. Again, the difference between this and the Zimmerman case is profound, because we are dealing with an intruder in one's gated yard in the middle of the night. In such an instance, there is no time for the homeowner to make the same sort of distinctions which (I believe) Zimmerman should have made; Landry had to concern himself with making sure his family was safe. That was his PRIMARY CONCERN, and all other considerations had to be swept aside.

Got to agree with you that it shouldn't affect the defense's argument that the 14 y.o. was going for his waist, but if this kid ends up being 4'10" and 80 pounds, it isn't difficult to envision it impacting a jury.

 

[Rayderr]

The appearance of the intruder (in terms of how big or old did he look, was he a young looking 14 or an older looking 14, etc) is irrelevant to this case. Again, the difference between this and the Zimmerman case is profound, because we are dealing with an intruder in one's gated yard in the middle of the night. In such an instance, there is no time for the homeowner to make the same sort of distinctions which (I believe) Zimmerman should have made; Landry had to concern himself with making sure his family was safe. That was his PRIMARY CONCERN, and all other considerations had to be swept aside.

Got to agree with you that it shouldn't affect the defense's argument that the 14 y.o. was going for his waist, but if this kid ends up being 4'10" and 80 pounds, it isn't difficult to envision it impacting a jury.

True. Because we all know, the bigger the person, the deadlier their gun is.

 

[Drifter]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

 

[eurotrashman]

Let's kill anyone suspicious or anyone stealing from us except the rich white guys.

 

[Rayderr]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

 

[Drifter]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

 

[Worm]

I wonder what the marital/family status of all the "it's completely out of line in all circumstances to shoot someone for trespassing near your home at 2 AM" people is.

 

[Rayderr]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Aimed shot hitting the head <> shot aimed at the head.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Just because he aimed, and then hit the head, doesn't mean he was aiming at the head. Especially if the kid was moving.

 

[Chaka]

Straight into the air, there is a decent margin of error off of a true 90 degree shot so you don't have to be perfect.

A bullet fired from a handgun will return to the earth at between 150-250 feet per second (200 FPS is the minimum velocity required to break the skin, bullets traveling up to 300 FPS have been known to not break the skin). Barring an extremely unlikely event of it landing in a person's eye or open mouth it will sting, maybe even draw a little blood but it will not kill you.

You may have missed the earlier discussion on this part. But I'll be sure to bring my t-square when I confront trespassers, to make sure I fire the bullet directly into the air like on Mythbusters. It shouldn't take long to square that up.

Does your warning shot scenario involve an unlimited amount of time? Do you hit pause when he reaches for his waist, while you point the gun up, make sure it's fairly straight up, fire, and then re-aim, hoping that he wasn't reaching for the gun he's going to use to shoot you?

I am not surprised that this option is not good enough for you. Blast away.

 

[Henry Ford]

Straight into the air, there is a decent margin of error off of a true 90 degree shot so you don't have to be perfect.

A bullet fired from a handgun will return to the earth at between 150-250 feet per second (200 FPS is the minimum velocity required to break the skin, bullets traveling up to 300 FPS have been known to not break the skin). Barring an extremely unlikely event of it landing in a person's eye or open mouth it will sting, maybe even draw a little blood but it will not kill you.

You may have missed the earlier discussion on this part. But I'll be sure to bring my t-square when I confront trespassers, to make sure I fire the bullet directly into the air like on Mythbusters. It shouldn't take long to square that up.

Does your warning shot scenario involve an unlimited amount of time? Do you hit pause when he reaches for his waist, while you point the gun up, make sure it's fairly straight up, fire, and then re-aim, hoping that he wasn't reaching for the gun he's going to use to shoot you?

I am not surprised that this option is not good enough for you. Blast away.

Ever seen/met anyone whose family member died from a falling bullet on New Year's Eve? It's hard to explain to them how it's impossible.

 

[Chaka]

Straight into the air, there is a decent margin of error off of a true 90 degree shot so you don't have to be perfect.

A bullet fired from a handgun will return to the earth at between 150-250 feet per second (200 FPS is the minimum velocity required to break the skin, bullets traveling up to 300 FPS have been known to not break the skin). Barring an extremely unlikely event of it landing in a person's eye or open mouth it will sting, maybe even draw a little blood but it will not kill you.

You may have missed the earlier discussion on this part. But I'll be sure to bring my t-square when I confront trespassers, to make sure I fire the bullet directly into the air like on Mythbusters. It shouldn't take long to square that up.

Does your warning shot scenario involve an unlimited amount of time? Do you hit pause when he reaches for his waist, while you point the gun up, make sure it's fairly straight up, fire, and then re-aim, hoping that he wasn't reaching for the gun he's going to use to shoot you?

I am not surprised that this option is not good enough for you. Blast away.

Ever seen met anyone whose family member died from a falling bullet on New Year's Eve? It's hard to explain to them how it's impossible.

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

 

[Henry Ford]

Straight into the air, there is a decent margin of error off of a true 90 degree shot so you don't have to be perfect.

A bullet fired from a handgun will return to the earth at between 150-250 feet per second (200 FPS is the minimum velocity required to break the skin, bullets traveling up to 300 FPS have been known to not break the skin). Barring an extremely unlikely event of it landing in a person's eye or open mouth it will sting, maybe even draw a little blood but it will not kill you.

You may have missed the earlier discussion on this part. But I'll be sure to bring my t-square when I confront trespassers, to make sure I fire the bullet directly into the air like on Mythbusters. It shouldn't take long to square that up.

Does your warning shot scenario involve an unlimited amount of time? Do you hit pause when he reaches for his waist, while you point the gun up, make sure it's fairly straight up, fire, and then re-aim, hoping that he wasn't reaching for the gun he's going to use to shoot you?

I am not surprised that this option is not good enough for you. Blast away.

Ever seen met anyone whose family member died from a falling bullet on New Year's Eve? It's hard to explain to them how it's impossible.

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside takes requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

How about the kid in Georgia a couple years ago, sitting in a church, who was struck by a bullet which went into the air, came down through the roof of the church and killed him on New Year's Eve?

 

[matttyl]

I am not surprised that this option is not good enough for you. Blast away.

I am surprised you're even considering this an option. NO, I will not move my weapon to face the sky to fire a round to have to re-aim it at the criminal on my property illegally (having required him to jump a fence) at 2 AM - no matter if he is reaching for something in his waistband or not. If he is, however, reaching into his waistband or not doing exactly what I'm telling him to do, I'll fire at him to insure the safety of my family members in the house he was likely trying to burglarize.

 

[Chaka]

Lay out this situation for me. The kid jumped a fence and was near the owners car when confronted? The kid could not flee unless he ran past the owner who was between the kid and the fence at the time of confrontation?

Is that correct?

 

[matttyl]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

 

[Clifford]

According to the law this guy walks:

The law also stated homicide was justifiable in similar cases: when committed in self-defense by one who "reasonably believes" he is in danger of great bodily harm or death; to prevent a forcible felony; and to prevent trespass on private property.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/louisiana_stand_your_ground_zi.html

In LA homicide is justifiable in cases of trespassing. That is something I did not know.

According to a news reporter's understanding of the law. Which is not the best source for legal interpretation.

This is copied from a gun rights site

RS 14:19http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
RS 14:20http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

§20. Justifiable homicideA. 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.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
RS 9:2800.19http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=408383

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimesA. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.
The red type if from the source. Definitely some grey area and no mention in these statutes about preventing trespassing. There are mentions of preventing someone from entering the dwelling, but not sure those suffice.

 

[Chaka]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

 

[Drifter]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Just because he aimed, and then hit the head, doesn't mean he was aiming at the head. Especially if the kid was moving.

Fair but misses high are rare. The most common misses in high pressure would be low and left resulting from jerking the trigger or "milking" the grip. Misses high and left and high and right come from anticipating recoil and are more often the result of repeated shooting of a gun with more kick - ie you are at the range and getting beat up by the recoil and start anticipating it. Misses straight up to that degree are relatively rare.

 

[Rayderr]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Just because he aimed, and then hit the head, doesn't mean he was aiming at the head. Especially if the kid was moving.

Fair but misses high are rare. The most common misses in high pressure would be low and left resulting from jerking the trigger or "milking" the grip. Misses high and left and high and right come from anticipating recoil and are more often the result of repeated shooting of a gun with more kick - ie you are at the range and getting beat up by the recoil and start anticipating it. Misses straight up to that degree are relatively rare.

That's all assuming a stationary target.

 

[Henry Ford]

According to the law this guy walks:

The law also stated homicide was justifiable in similar cases: when committed in self-defense by one who "reasonably believes" he is in danger of great bodily harm or death; to prevent a forcible felony; and to prevent trespass on private property.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/louisiana_stand_your_ground_zi.html

In LA homicide is justifiable in cases of trespassing. That is something I did not know.

According to a news reporter's understanding of the law. Which is not the best source for legal interpretation.

This is copied from a gun rights site

RS 14:19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
RS 14:20http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

§20. Justifiable homicideA. 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.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
RS 9:2800.19http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=408383

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimesA. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.
The red type if from the source. Definitely some grey area and no mention in these statutes about preventing trespassing. There are mentions of preventing someone from entering the dwelling, but not sure those suffice.

Try bolding the whole sentence next time, it makes more sense:

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

Landry wasn't inside anything that was being broken into while he was shooting.

And I posted something along these lines earlier in the thread. He doesn't get the statutory presumption, but that doesn't mean he's not justified.

 

[top dog]

Please.. Stop suggesting that someone shoot a warning shot up in the air people. It is possibly the worst advice someone can take.

 

[Henry Ford]

Please.. Stop suggesting that someone shoot a warning shot up in the air people. It is possibly the worst advice someone can take.

But hey, what are the chances it kills a baby, right? Very low.

 

[Drifter]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Just because he aimed, and then hit the head, doesn't mean he was aiming at the head. Especially if the kid was moving.

Fair but misses high are rare. The most common misses in high pressure would be low and left resulting from jerking the trigger or "milking" the grip. Misses high and left and high and right come from anticipating recoil and are more often the result of repeated shooting of a gun with more kick - ie you are at the range and getting beat up by the recoil and start anticipating it. Misses straight up to that degree are relatively rare.

That's all assuming a stationary target.

True. A miss up and to the left or right on someone who has moved could result in that. Still not a common way to miss by 1-2 feet but possible. If the victim ducked their head that would also result in a head shot and the angle of entry will show that. I would also love to know if has been asked yet where he was aiming when he fired.

 

[Politician Spock]

Another local news story getting national attention it doesn't deserve.

Who are you to decide this? I think that, at least theoretically, it raises some very interesting questions.

It will be a year or two before the public has access to enough of the facts of the case to know what actually happened. Answering any questions, regardless of how interesting the questions are, until enough facts about what happened are known, only causes the "interesting questions" to be "answered" by a bunch of assumptions and assertations

 

[Clifford]

According to the law this guy walks:

The law also stated homicide was justifiable in similar cases: when committed in self-defense by one who "reasonably believes" he is in danger of great bodily harm or death; to prevent a forcible felony; and to prevent trespass on private property.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/louisiana_stand_your_ground_zi.html

In LA homicide is justifiable in cases of trespassing. That is something I did not know.

According to a news reporter's understanding of the law. Which is not the best source for legal interpretation.

This is copied from a gun rights site

RS 14:19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
RS 14:20http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

§20. Justifiable homicideA. 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.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
RS 9:2800.19http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=408383

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimesA. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.
The red type if from the source. Definitely some grey area and no mention in these statutes about preventing trespassing. There are mentions of preventing someone from entering the dwelling, but not sure those suffice.

Try bolding the whole sentence next time, it makes more sense:

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

Landry wasn't inside anything that was being broken into while he was shooting.

And I posted something along these lines earlier in the thread. He doesn't get the statutory presumption, but that doesn't mean he's not justified.

So the fact that he was outside the confines of his physical home, even though he was on his property, would mean this particular statute does not apply. Are you sure a yard is not considered part of a dwelling?

 

[matttyl]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in America at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

 

[kentric]

The appearance of the intruder (in terms of how big or old did he look, was he a young looking 14 or an older looking 14, etc) is irrelevant to this case. Again, the difference between this and the Zimmerman case is profound, because we are dealing with an intruder in one's gated yard in the middle of the night. In such an instance, there is no time for the homeowner to make the same sort of distinctions which (I believe) Zimmerman should have made; Landry had to concern himself with making sure his family was safe. That was his PRIMARY CONCERN, and all other considerations had to be swept aside.

Got to agree with you that it shouldn't affect the defense's argument that the 14 y.o. was going for his waist, but if this kid ends up being 4'10" and 80 pounds, it isn't difficult to envision it impacting a jury.

True. Because we all know, the bigger the person, the deadlier their gun is.

No. The bigger the person, the more threatening he is perceived. A 14 y.o. who looks 10 is more likely to receive sympathy from a juror than a 14 y.o. who looks 18. Even though it shouldn't have a bearing on the defenses position (that the 14 y.o. went for his waist and the homeowner thought he was pulling a gun), you can't totally ignore how the kid's appearance can impact a juror.

 

[kentric]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in American at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

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).

 

[Rayderr]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in American at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

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).

Personally, I'd suspect a smaller, scrawnier burglar of carrying a gun than a larger person as they need something to help even the odds in case they have run into the homeowner.

 

[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.

 

[Clifford]

3. At common law, in cases of burglary, under the term dwelling house are included the out-houses within the curtilage or common fence with the dwelling house. 3 Inst. 64; 4 Bl. Com. 225; and vide Russ & Ry. Cr. Cas. 170; Id. 186; 16 Mass. 105; 16 John. 203; 18 John. 115; 4 Call, 109; 1 Moody, Cr. Cas. 274; Burglary; Door; House; Jail; Mansion.

 

[Chaka]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in America at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

Is there anything I could say that would possibly change your mind?

 

[kentric]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in American at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

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).

Personally, I'd suspect a smaller, scrawnier burglar of carrying a gun than a larger person as they need something to help even the odds in case they have run into the homeowner.

You're a juror and you see pics of the boy. Which pic do you think would prove more troublesome for the 33 y.o. homeowner's defense?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKr_TvlRKWQAMHqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyZTN0bzkwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMwNWUwZDZiNmNlNzExY2RlMWI0N2Q0ZDhjMGQ1ZmRhMQRncG9zAzc1?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bimages%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-900%26ac%3D14%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D75&w=429&h=462&imgurl=gospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon_Martin_.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Ftrayvon-martin-case-heats-up-in-florida%2F&size=34.6KB&name=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&p=trayvon+martin+images&oid=05e0d6b6ce711cde1b47d4d8c0d5fda1&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-900&tt=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&b=61∋=192&no=75&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12f7qp6qu&sigb=13nfvo4oj&sigi=12e0hd403&.crumb=xI8I5OIScTF&fr=yfp-t-900

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKr_TvlRKWQAMHqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyZTN0bzkwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMwNWUwZDZiNmNlNzExY2RlMWI0N2Q0ZDhjMGQ1ZmRhMQRncG9zAzc1?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bimages%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-900%26ac%3D14%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D75&w=429&h=462&imgurl=gospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon_Martin_.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Ftrayvon-martin-case-heats-up-in-florida%2F&size=34.6KB&name=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&p=trayvon+martin+images&oid=05e0d6b6ce711cde1b47d4d8c0d5fda1&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-900&tt=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&b=61∋=192&no=75&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12f7qp6qu&sigb=13nfvo4oj&sigi=12e0hd403&.crumb=xI8I5OIScTF&fr=yfp-t-900#

 

[kentric]

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.

Doubt it would only take 1.5 seconds considering he was just turning around (based on my understanding). In any event, I'm not shooting in the air and not shooting the intruder unless they start moving toward me.

 

[Chaka]

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?

 

[kentric]

Did the homeowner come out of his house from a side door? I'm confused as to how the kid got between the homeowner and his door. If it was a separate entrance, was the door to his home locked? That could have a material bearing on how this is viewed - if he feared for his family's life and the 14 y.o. was by the door, it would definately work against him if the door was locked and the intruder would have to break down the door to enter his home.

 

[kentric]

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?

My thought as well. Assuming the dog was barking its quite possible that the wife or the neighbor would look out the window to see what was going on. Recipe for trouble.

 

[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.

 

[Zow]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Drifter making some good points here I think. As a non-gun guy, I didn't think to consider these circumstances. I like it.

 

[Zow]

3. At common law, in cases of burglary, under the term dwelling house are included the out-houses within the curtilage or common fence with the dwelling house. 3 Inst. 64; 4 Bl. Com. 225; and vide Russ & Ry. Cr. Cas. 170; Id. 186; 16 Mass. 105; 16 John. 203; 18 John. 115; 4 Call, 109; 1 Moody, Cr. Cas. 274; Burglary; Door; House; Jail; Mansion.

LA is a code state which doesn't follow common law.

 

[Clifford]

So what's your take counselor? Is the shooter explicitly protected by LA laws or will this come down to who and how much the jury beleives?

 

[Chaka]

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?

 

[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.

 

[matttyl]

How much, if any, responsibility of this act should be placed on the parents of the 14 year old? Seriously, it's 2 in the morning and you don't know where your 14 year old child is who's had issues with the law in the past.

At what point is this child neglect?!

 

[T Bell]

I've stayed out of this thread but something was bugging me about it and I think I worked out what:

The shooter fired one shot to the head. At 30 feet this is not a horribly difficult shot in a non-stress situation against a static target. It's considerably more difficult in a high stress environment, in the dark against a moving (even if slightly moving) target. In my mind, a single shot being fired implies a high level of confidence. In turn, all of this implies that he had targetted the victim's head in his sights.

If he had a high point of aim and had his non-aiming eye occluded or close, it would be next to impossible to see the victim's hand reach for his waist. Even if he was an extremely talented shooter and could hold target in his sites with both eyes open, any movement away from the target (head) would only be caught peripherally, if at all.

Now, if the victim had made a move to run, I can see why this might be taken as a hand moving to the waist as when you are standing still and start to run, your arms tend to be the first thing that begin to move to set your balance and provide leverage. However, I believe that the shooter likely was ready to shoot if any movement happened whatsoever and given the accuracy and focus needed for a single head shot, he shot before he could have realistically made any assessment that the target was reaching for a weapon.

Just one opinion. And FTR I own several guns and am an avid shooting hobbyist.

Hitting the head <> aiming for the head.

A single shot seems to indicate it was an aimed shot. Someone who doesn't aim, is more likely to fire multiple shots in succession.

Just because he aimed, and then hit the head, doesn't mean he was aiming at the head. Especially if the kid was moving.

Fair but misses high are rare. The most common misses in high pressure would be low and left resulting from jerking the trigger or "milking" the grip. Misses high and left and high and right come from anticipating recoil and are more often the result of repeated shooting of a gun with more kick - ie you are at the range and getting beat up by the recoil and start anticipating it. Misses straight up to that degree are relatively rare.

You know nothing about this shooter except for a single shot during a single incident, the events of which are very unclear and/or hotly disputed. This seems like a pretty small sample of data points to engage in this sort of inductive reasoning, no?

 

[T Bell]

I'm sure it's being discussed in one form or another, but LA law is VERY conservative/traditional, and that will favor the shooter here. It's conservative even for the south.

 

[T Bell]

3. At common law, in cases of burglary, under the term dwelling house are included the out-houses within the curtilage or common fence with the dwelling house. 3 Inst. 64; 4 Bl. Com. 225; and vide Russ & Ry. Cr. Cas. 170; Id. 186; 16 Mass. 105; 16 John. 203; 18 John. 115; 4 Call, 109; 1 Moody, Cr. Cas. 274; Burglary; Door; House; Jail; Mansion.

LA is a code state which doesn't follow common law.

Exactly. It's from a different (French) legal tradition, believe it or not.

 

[Doug B]

How much, if any, responsibility of this act should be placed on the parents of the 14 year old? Seriously, it's 2 in the morning and you don't know where your 14 year old child is who's had issues with the law in the past.

Been listening to more local talk radio, FWIW. Many, many callers are blaming the 14-year-olds parents and giving the homeowner a total pass. Almost all have been African-American callers, to boot (yes, most self-identify for context).

There are likely some Chakas, kentrics, and Cliffords in the New Orleans area ... but right now, they aren't getting much of a voice. A few activists, at a Monday evening commiunity meeting, tried to broach the idea that Landry was in the wrong, but they got shouted down.

If this ever goes to trial, and stays local ... Landry will walk very easily. And there's no real gain in the prosecution potentially attempting to stack the jury racially. Support for Landry, to this point, completely crosses racial lines -- this will not be Zimmerman-Martin Redux, at least not locally.