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

[cstu]

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.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.

Am I being irrational here?

It's not irrational, but it does make trespassing essentially punishable by death. If we establish that self-defense really has nothing to do with someone being physically attacked, and has only to do with "reasonably fearing for one's life" and the spectre that someone could reasonably attack, then does that not open up an entirely new area of justifiable homicide in self-defense?

It's essentially the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare on an individual level.

Tim, suppose you shot that person in your yard and it turns out it was a homeless person trying to rifle through your trash for food, how would you feel about your actions? Do you feel that you would deserve to be exonerated, since the person was trespassing and caused you to fear for your life and the wellbeing of your family?

You raise good questions here. One element to remember is the time of night. 2 am is very different from 4pm or any time when there's sunlight, or early dusk, etc. You can pretty much assume that anyone who's jumping into your gated yard at 2 am is up to no good. I think it also rules out, in all probability, your example of a homeless guy. I know lots of homeless people in southern California, and unless they behave very differently in Louisiana, they're not the sort that would typically climb over a high private gate in the middle of the night. They look for easy access locations to sleep and forage.

But I will try to answer your question anyhow. I would feel terrible, absolutely mortified, if I ever shot anyone, and that is one reason I don't own and will never own a firearm. But the question of whether I would deserve to be exonerated is different from how I would feel. My answer to you is yes, if I shot someone trespassing in my yard at 2am in the morning, I would deserve to be exonerated in almost all cases.

Well, I don't think what you are talking about is really self-defense, because it's defending someone from a likely future situation rather than a present one. You are defending yourself from something you assume is going to happen given the situation (2am, high-crime neighborhood, kid jumped fence).

Personally I find this extremely troublesome because various crimes other than those intended to inflict violence become cause for justifiable homicide under Castle law. Including trespassing.

How many times (beyond the current 50-75 existing occurrences) are people going to have to point out the shooter seeing the kid "reaching for a gun" before you start to acknowledge it in your lifetime made-for-tv movie scenarios?

How many times do you have to hear of people murdering an unarmed person because they thought 'he was reaching for a gun' to realize these people are actually just itching to shoot someone?

 

[Dr Oadi]

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.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.Am I being irrational here?

It's not irrational, but it does make trespassing essentially punishable by death. If we establish that self-defense really has nothing to do with someone being physically attacked, and has only to do with "reasonably fearing for one's life" and the spectre that someone could reasonably attack, then does that not open up an entirely new area of justifiable homicide in self-defense?It's essentially the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare on an individual level.

Tim, suppose you shot that person in your yard and it turns out it was a homeless person trying to rifle through your trash for food, how would you feel about your actions? Do you feel that you would deserve to be exonerated, since the person was trespassing and caused you to fear for your life and the wellbeing of your family?

You raise good questions here. One element to remember is the time of night. 2 am is very different from 4pm or any time when there's sunlight, or early dusk, etc. You can pretty much assume that anyone who's jumping into your gated yard at 2 am is up to no good. I think it also rules out, in all probability, your example of a homeless guy. I know lots of homeless people in southern California, and unless they behave very differently in Louisiana, they're not the sort that would typically climb over a high private gate in the middle of the night. They look for easy access locations to sleep and forage.But I will try to answer your question anyhow. I would feel terrible, absolutely mortified, if I ever shot anyone, and that is one reason I don't own and will never own a firearm. But the question of whether I would deserve to be exonerated is different from how I would feel. My answer to you is yes, if I shot someone trespassing in my yard at 2am in the morning, I would deserve to be exonerated in almost all cases.

Well, I don't think what you are talking about is really self-defense, because it's defending someone from a likely future situation rather than a present one. You are defending yourself from something you assume is going to happen given the situation (2am, high-crime neighborhood, kid jumped fence).Personally I find this extremely troublesome because various crimes other than those intended to inflict violence become cause for justifiable homicide under Castle law. Including trespassing.

How many times (beyond the current 50-75 existing occurrences) are people going to have to point out the shooter seeing the kid "reaching for a gun" before you start to acknowledge it in your lifetime made-for-tv movie scenarios?

How many times do you have to hear of people murdering an unarmed person because they thought 'he was reaching for a gun' to realize these people are actually just itching to shoot someone?

What do you mean "these people"?

 

[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.

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.

This should go to trial. The parents should be put on the stand.

 

[[icon]]

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.

 

[Thunderlips]

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.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.

Am I being irrational here?

It's not irrational, but it does make trespassing essentially punishable by death. If we establish that self-defense really has nothing to do with someone being physically attacked, and has only to do with "reasonably fearing for one's life" and the spectre that someone could reasonably attack, then does that not open up an entirely new area of justifiable homicide in self-defense?

It's essentially the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare on an individual level.

Tim, suppose you shot that person in your yard and it turns out it was a homeless person trying to rifle through your trash for food, how would you feel about your actions? Do you feel that you would deserve to be exonerated, since the person was trespassing and caused you to fear for your life and the wellbeing of your family?

You raise good questions here. One element to remember is the time of night. 2 am is very different from 4pm or any time when there's sunlight, or early dusk, etc. You can pretty much assume that anyone who's jumping into your gated yard at 2 am is up to no good. I think it also rules out, in all probability, your example of a homeless guy. I know lots of homeless people in southern California, and unless they behave very differently in Louisiana, they're not the sort that would typically climb over a high private gate in the middle of the night. They look for easy access locations to sleep and forage.

But I will try to answer your question anyhow. I would feel terrible, absolutely mortified, if I ever shot anyone, and that is one reason I don't own and will never own a firearm. But the question of whether I would deserve to be exonerated is different from how I would feel. My answer to you is yes, if I shot someone trespassing in my yard at 2am in the morning, I would deserve to be exonerated in almost all cases.

Well, I don't think what you are talking about is really self-defense, because it's defending someone from a likely future situation rather than a present one. You are defending yourself from something you assume is going to happen given the situation (2am, high-crime neighborhood, kid jumped fence).

Personally I find this extremely troublesome because various crimes other than those intended to inflict violence become cause for justifiable homicide under Castle law. Including trespassing.

How many times (beyond the current 50-75 existing occurrences) are people going to have to point out the shooter seeing the kid "reaching for a gun" before you start to acknowledge it in your lifetime made-for-tv movie scenarios?

How many times do you have to hear of people murdering an unarmed person because they thought 'he was reaching for a gun' to realize these people are actually just itching to shoot someone?

I do think that the idea of "serving justice" does permeate through the heads of a portion of gun owners.

 

[Thunderlips]

If you're going to shoot a guy 30 feet away because he's adjusting his pants....at least have the common sense to plant a gun on him after he's dead. That way more people will sympathize your "O.K. Corral" tendencies.

 

[cstu]

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.

Even though I think Zimmerman was innocent and this guy is guilty, I sympathize a lot more with Trayvon than a kid trespassing on someone's property in the middle of the night.

 

[ATC1]

Skimmed through the thread. Was the kid shot in the back of the head? The big thing in this case will be forensics. If prosecution can get the medical examiner to say the kid was turned or in the process of retreat, then Mr. Landry would be in trouble IMO. Otherwise, I can conceivably think the shooter feared for his family's safety given the neighborhood's history, time of day, and pregnant wife and small child in the house.

 

[ATC1]

On the note of warning shots. Asked the officer teaching us the carry permit laws and self defense scenarios about the use of warning shots. He said it was not advisable at all. When you put your finger on the trigger, your intent is to kill. He did say that some people put a blank or a safety slug into the chamber of their house defense gun though. If someone were to get their hands on the gun (children, the intruder himself etc.) the first shot would not be fatal giving you extra time to lock yourself in, hit the alarm, hide, etc.

 

[Clifford]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

You're point is wrong. The fear is rooted in the reality that someone climbed his fence, entered his yard and was apparently attempting to enter the house, and when confronted, made a motion as if he was drawing a weapon.

That doesn't quite make it self-defense, if we are defining that as defending yourself. My point is that the definition has changed from defending yourself, to defending yourself from something you think might be about to happen.

Subtle I know...

 

[Clifford]

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.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.

Am I being irrational here?

It's not irrational, but it does make trespassing essentially punishable by death. If we establish that self-defense really has nothing to do with someone being physically attacked, and has only to do with "reasonably fearing for one's life" and the spectre that someone could reasonably attack, then does that not open up an entirely new area of justifiable homicide in self-defense?

It's essentially the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare on an individual level.

Tim, suppose you shot that person in your yard and it turns out it was a homeless person trying to rifle through your trash for food, how would you feel about your actions? Do you feel that you would deserve to be exonerated, since the person was trespassing and caused you to fear for your life and the wellbeing of your family?

You raise good questions here. One element to remember is the time of night. 2 am is very different from 4pm or any time when there's sunlight, or early dusk, etc. You can pretty much assume that anyone who's jumping into your gated yard at 2 am is up to no good. I think it also rules out, in all probability, your example of a homeless guy. I know lots of homeless people in southern California, and unless they behave very differently in Louisiana, they're not the sort that would typically climb over a high private gate in the middle of the night. They look for easy access locations to sleep and forage.

But I will try to answer your question anyhow. I would feel terrible, absolutely mortified, if I ever shot anyone, and that is one reason I don't own and will never own a firearm. But the question of whether I would deserve to be exonerated is different from how I would feel. My answer to you is yes, if I shot someone trespassing in my yard at 2am in the morning, I would deserve to be exonerated in almost all cases.

Well, I don't think what you are talking about is really self-defense, because it's defending someone from a likely future situation rather than a present one. You are defending yourself from something you assume is going to happen given the situation (2am, high-crime neighborhood, kid jumped fence).

Personally I find this extremely troublesome because various crimes other than those intended to inflict violence become cause for justifiable homicide under Castle law. Including trespassing.

How many times (beyond the current 50-75 existing occurrences) are people going to have to point out the shooter seeing the kid "reaching for a gun" before you start to acknowledge it in your lifetime made-for-tv movie scenarios?

How many times do you have to hear of people murdering an unarmed person because they thought 'he was reaching for a gun' to realize these people are actually just itching to shoot someone?

Not even the shooter says he saw the kid reaching for a gun.

 

[Clifford]

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.

There is not the slightest amount of doubt in my mind that this guy will get acquitted. After all, these things never come down to actual, real threats. It's all about perception.

 

[timschochet]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

You're point is wrong. The fear is rooted in the reality that someone climbed his fence, entered his yard and was apparently attempting to enter the house, and when confronted, made a motion as if he was drawing a weapon.

That doesn't quite make it self-defense, if we are defining that as defending yourself. My point is that the definition has changed from defending yourself, to defending yourself from something you think might be about to happen.

Subtle I know...

No, it's an important distinction, and it's right that you make it. It iS disturbing. But I don't know what to do about it.

To be honest (and I know this is going to anger the gun owners here), if I could magically make it happen, I would prefer to live in a society in which only law enforcement had the right to use firearms. I believe that, collectively, we would all be safer in such a society. But we don't live in that society, and there is no way to achieve it. So we have to give people who want to defend themselves some leeway, and that includes giving them the benefit of the doubt when the intruder is in their home or right outside it in the middle of the night.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I'll start by saying I have never entered one of these debates before, but I find it extremely odd that people don't put themselves in the shoes of the home owner. Or they just lead very different lives. Before I state my thoughts, I will first post my personal facts:

1. I am a home owner with a fenced in yard.

2. I have a wife and two children that I love more than life itself.

3. I am not a gun owner. Never have been. Never will be.

4. I am Canadian (I am sure this fact may result in the most comments.)

5. I have gone in my back yard multiple times to investigate noises and typically will brandish a weapon (baseball bat or base end of a pool cue converted into a "bashing stick").

6. I have lived in mostly decent neighborhoods, but one in particular that had a few incidents (one significant assault two blocks away, a couple of arsons and a number of stolen cars.)

Given all of the above, when I heard a noise in my yard, I would brandish my "bashing stick" (the term my youngest son gave it) and investigate the noise. In each previous case except one it was either a cat, dog, the wind or something equally non-threatening. In one case it was someone breaking into my car. Although I only encountered someone once, I can honestly say that my fear level was fairly high many times. In the one instance when may car was broken into, I yelled and the jerk ran off immediately, but the fear was significant as we the adrenaline running through me.

Putting myself in Landry shoes and coming around the corner seeing someone in my locked fenced yard near my car and back door, I would literally be freaked out with fear. Add to this that Landry lives in a community that makes my example above look like Mayberry, I cannot fathom the fear that would be cursing through me. My thoughts would obviously be immediately with my wife and children and the need to protect them.

I have difficulty saying what I would do from here since I have zero experience with a gun, but if I yelled and the guy made a movement as described by Landry, I would make an immediate bee-line to him and do whatever necessary with my "bashing stick" to protect my family.

I honestly cannot understand any other reaction with those that have equal or similar facts as I note above. If the Landry statements are true, then there is no question in my mind that he was well within a reasonable right to take the measure he did to protect himself and his family.

 

[Clifford]

so you are in support of broadening the scope of self-defense to include situations where the shooter is not actually being attacked at the time of the shooting, but rather engages in pre-emptive shooting to ward of a possible attack, as happened in this case?

 

[Clifford]

I'll start by saying I have never entered one of these debates before, but I find it extremely odd that people don't put themselves in the shoes of the home owner. Or they just lead very different lives. Before I state my thoughts, I will first post my personal facts:

1. I am a home owner with a fenced in yard.

2. I have a wife and two children that I love more than life itself.

3. I am not a gun owner. Never have been. Never will be.

4. I am Canadian (I am sure this fact may result in the most comments.)

5. I have gone in my back yard multiple times to investigate noises and typically will brandish a weapon (baseball bat or base end of a pool cue converted into a "bashing stick").

6. I have lived in mostly decent neighborhoods, but one in particular that had a few incidents (one significant assault two blocks away, a couple of arsons and a number of stolen cars.)

Given all of the above, when I heard a noise in my yard, I would brandish my "bashing stick" (the term my youngest son gave it) and investigate the noise. In each previous case except one it was either a cat, dog, the wind or something equally non-threatening. In one case it was someone breaking into my car. Although I only encountered someone once, I can honestly say that my fear level was fairly high many times. In the one instance when may car was broken into, I yelled and the jerk ran off immediately, but the fear was significant as we the adrenaline running through me.

Putting myself in Landry shoes and coming around the corner seeing someone in my locked fenced yard near my car and back door, I would literally be freaked out with fear. Add to this that Landry lives in a community that makes my example above look like Mayberry, I cannot fathom the fear that would be cursing through me. My thoughts would obviously be immediately with my wife and children and the need to protect them.

I have difficulty saying what I would do from here since I have zero experience with a gun, but if I yelled and the guy made a movement as described by Landry, I would make an immediate bee-line to him and do whatever necessary with my "bashing stick" to protect my family.

I honestly cannot understand any other reaction with those that have equal or similar facts as I note above. If the Landry statements are true, then there is no question in my mind that he was well within a reasonable right to take the measure he did to protect himself and his family.

I honestly sympathize with the guy's mindset. I don't agree with his choice to fire as quick as he did. What I question is whether broadening the scope of self defense to include defending oneself from a perceived future event as opposed to one actually happening might be responsible for people being a little quick on the trigger in similar situations.

 

[timschochet]

so you are in support of broadening the scope of self-defense to include situations where the shooter is not actually being attacked at the time of the shooting, but rather engages in pre-emptive shooting to ward of a possible attack, as happened in this case?

You keep wanting to use this case to make rules for ALL cases. It doesn't work that way. It depends on the situation. Sometimes the situation warrants this sort of response. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Atomic Punk]

so you are in support of broadening the scope of self-defense to include situations where the shooter is not actually being attacked at the time of the shooting, but rather engages in pre-emptive shooting to ward of a possible attack, as happened in this case?

Given the fear I felt in my very different situation and putting myself in Landry's shoes (I am in the US where guns are much more common), yes.

The only difference really is my difficulty rationalizing the potential for a fatality due to the use of a gun vs. "bashing stick" in my scenario. Gun ownership in Canada is not as prevalent in most Canadian cities, so the likelihood of a car thief having one is extremely limited. I would therefore not have the same level of fear that someone like Landry would have, as I would likely only be involved in a physical altercation if the individual did not immediately flee. The chance of a fatality is still there, but much less likely.

 

[Clifford]

Sorry that was meant for tim

 

[T Bell]

I'll jump in with one other observation: 30 feet is not a great distance. It's only 2/3 of the distance between the little league pitcher's mound and home plate, and maybe 5 steps with someone running. That ground gets covered in no more than 2 seconds or so by a young, able-bodied male. If I'm confronting a trespassing stranger in an enclosed area on my property at 2 a.m., that distance gives me no comfort.

 

[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.

 

[Henry Ford]

so you are in support of broadening the scope of self-defense to include situations where the shooter is not actually being attacked at the time of the shooting, but rather engages in pre-emptive shooting to ward of a possible attack, as happened in this case?

The fact that it's justifiable from a legal standpoint doesn't make it "self defense." It's just the easiest shorthand for justifiable shooting.

 

[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.

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

 

[PatsWillWin]

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.

 

[PatsWillWin]

It's not irrational, but it does make trespassing essentially punishable by death. If we establish that self-defense really has nothing to do with someone being physically attacked, and has only to do with "reasonably fearing for one's life" and the spectre that someone could reasonably attack, then does that not open up an entirely new area of justifiable homicide in self-defense?

It amuses me that you think any of this is "new."

 

[PatsWillWin]

Modern self-defense doctrine only allows potentially deadly force to be used to protect innocent life (as opposed to property), and only when there is no reasonable alternative such as escape, and only to the extent reasonably necessary (e.g. 1 or 2 shots rather than emptying your mag and then re-loading).

While I have a lot fewer complaints about the Castle Doctrine (limited to your dwelling) than I do the Stand Your Ground Doctrine, it still troubles me that both seem to gloss over the need for the threat to be against innocent life, and the use of deadly force only as a last alternative.

This is one of the most interesting aspects of this subject, and I've been thinking about it for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure I'm opposed to SYG. But as to the Castle doctrine...

I already stated that it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, to be in a state of fear for your family the minute you are aware of an intruder at 2 am in the morning on your property, and that it is also quite reasonable to remain in that state of fear until the threat has been removed. That being the case, it follows that placing the same sort of restrictions on justifiable self-defense that we would in a confrontation elsewhere (as I would in the Zimmerman case, for example) seem burdensome here. Simply put, I don't believe a homeowner, who is in a reasonable state of fear for his family's lives, should have to take the time to be responsible to determine whether the danger is real or not. Not at that time of the night.

If that means that ultimately I am arguing for the right of homeowners to execute trespassers, then so be it.

Modern self defense must show:

1) Capacity to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

2) Desire to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

This does not include opening the door to executing people for setting foot on your property.

Anyone can perceive anyone of having the capacity to do harm or the desire to do harm and such perceptions could be reasonable even if they are not in any way rooted in reality. This is where I think the law is flawed.

That is your opinion. thankfully lawmakers don't concur and trust juries/judges to interpret the grey area.

The perceptions MUST be rooted in reality, though. And that's where you're wrong.

• 140lb man faces unarmed but violent 220lb man who is beating him or coming at him threatening to kill him. 140lb man is justified in using lethal force.

• 220lb man has 140lb woman hitting him with both fists and threatening to kill him. 220lb man is not justified in using lethal force.

It's not like the jury goes "Oh...well I mean if you THOUGHT the 140lb woman was going to beat you to death with her fists, I guess you're off the hook.

Again, you're either fishing or not very bright. either way, I'm done addressing your idiocy.

Dude, if you don't get that the mixing of reality with perception in direction is confusing to jurors, then you're the idiot. Go read some of the interviews of jurors who have had to decide these cases.

Just look at the case in point. Objective facts "rooted in reality" tell us that an unarmed boy 30 feet away poses no threat at all to a grown man armed with a gun. Yet many feel his actions were reasonable, despite objective proof he wasn't in any real danger. Just like your clear-cut example of a 220lb man getting beaten by a 140lb woman.

No matter how "clear" you think the law is, it's actually not. If, as you say, the perception "must be rooted in reality" then this guy fries because nothing rooted in reality says he was in any kind of danger.

How about you try to understand other points of view instead of hurling insults.

Well in his defense, you are being pretty dumb.

In hindsight we now know that the kid wasn't armed and that the homeowner was probably not in any real danger. Unfortunately the homeowner didn't have the benefit of hindsight when he had to decide whether or not to fire his weapon. The question is at that moment, would a reasonable man in his circumstances felt that he/his were in danger.

 

[Thunderlips]

Didn't he have a dog? Where was the dog in all of this?

 

[Rayderr]

Didn't he have a dog? Where was the dog in all of this?

If it's this dog here, that doesn't even seem to care about the photographer, I'd say he wasn't going to be of much help.

 

[Henry Ford]

Didn't he have a dog? Where was the dog in all of this?

Yes! Arrest the dog! He was in on it!

 

[Emerson Biggens]

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?

I don't get all this sympathy for the POS criminal. The homeowner did society a favor by getting this guy off the street.

All the people on the wait inside and call the cops wagon...I was reading a news article yesterday from a small town around here in north Mississippi. A homeowner called 911 to report people breaking into his house. Guess what, he was shot twice during the robbery and died while waiting for them. No word on whether he fired a warning shot in the air either...

 

[Henry Ford]

And if someone's pointing a gun at you, what the f is a warning shot for? To let you know he really doesn't want to shoot you? That'll be real effective. Having a gun pointed at me is a pretty effective warning, personally.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Chaka]

And if someone's pointing a gun at you, what the f is a warning shot for? To let you know he really doesn't want to shoot you? That'll be real effective. Having a gun pointed at me is a pretty effective warning, personally.

To be clear I never said he should have fired a warning shot, I merely pointed out that there are options on where to point the gun if he chose to fire one.

 

[parasaurolophus]

so you are in support of broadening the scope of self-defense to include situations where the shooter is not actually being attacked at the time of the shooting, but rather engages in pre-emptive shooting to ward of a possible attack, as happened in this case?

At 2 am on your own property inside the fence line after telling the person to stand still and he doesn't, yes.

 

[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.

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

Got it.

 

[Dvorak]

A warning shot is a sure way to get yourself in real trouble. I would not recommend this, at all. If you are firing a warning shot, the prosecutor is going to claim you weren't truly in fear for your life or in immediate danger. A warning shot is even more reckless as your intention by doing so is to create a "stray bullet".

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/military-vet-faces-charges-for-firing-warning-shot-at-suspect-trying-to-break-into-home/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18661404/homeowner-jailed-for-firing-warning-shot

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353788/man-arrested-firing-warning-shots-i-did-what-joe-biden-told-me-do-katherine-connell

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/crime-law/drive-thru-employee-fires-shot-after-argument/nY5hG/?nmredir=true

As for this case, good shoot. Once the trespasser unknowingly got between the home owner and his family he had two choices, "Freeze" or "Get shot at". He chose the latter. Sucks to be him but when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

I'm more disgusted at charges even being filed in this case than anything that happened during the Zimmerman ordeal.

Final comment, if the casing was 30 feet away from the victim, they could easily have been only 10-15 feet apart. Brass ejecting backwards could roll quite a bit on a driveway.

(edits to add a couple more warning shot=arrest cases)

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

 

[ATC1]

To be honest (and I know this is going to anger the gun owners here), if I could magically make it happen, I would prefer to live in a society in which only law enforcement had the right to use firearms. there are no such thing as firearms. I believe that, collectively, we would all be safer in such a society. But we don't live in that society, and there is no way to achieve it. So we have to give people who want to defend themselves some leeway, and that includes giving them the benefit of the doubt when the intruder is in their home or right outside it in the middle of the night.

Fixed.

If any guns are allowed to circulate, criminals will get their hands on them. Ideally I will always try to arm myself with the most effective weapon possible for protection (shotgun). If I'm not allowed to have it, that means my family is behind me, I am wielding a baseball bat and a younger possibly more athletic "professional criminal" is wielding a crowbar, I'm not feeling too confident in my ability to protect my family.

 

[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.

He is not the only eyewitness. There is one other eyewitness who hasn't been identified, but is likely the kid who was the lookout, who was seen riding bikes up and down the street with Coulter looking at houses fifteen minutes earlier.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[timschochet]

To be honest (and I know this is going to anger the gun owners here), if I could magically make it happen, I would prefer to live in a society in which only law enforcement had the right to use firearms. there are no such thing as firearms. I believe that, collectively, we would all be safer in such a society. But we don't live in that society, and there is no way to achieve it. So we have to give people who want to defend themselves some leeway, and that includes giving them the benefit of the doubt when the intruder is in their home or right outside it in the middle of the night.

Fixed.If any guns are allowed to circulate, criminals will get their hands on them. Ideally I will always try to arm myself with the most effective weapon possible for protection (shotgun). If I'm not allowed to have it, that means my family is behind me, I am wielding a baseball bat and a younger possibly more athletic "professional criminal" is wielding a crowbar, I'm not feeling too confident in my ability to protect my family.

The statistics of gun deaths in countries where guns are not privately owned don't bear you out on this. But whatever. It doesn't matter, because there's no way to get there. In OUR society, given that bad guys do have easy access to guns, I support your right to defend yourself.

 

[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.

 

[Clifford]

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?

I don't the homeowner is a murderer, and I have no reason to think he is a murderer. I think in all likelihood he acted in accordance with LA castle law and this will be ruled justifiable homicide. I don't think it can be ruled self-defense as he wasn't being attacked and really was not defending his person.

I think our laws allow and in turn almost advocate a "shoot first" approach to these situations. I think if our laws changed to make it harder to have a situation such as this ruled a justifiable homicide, then maybe this guy Landry would not have shot as quickly as he did.

I think the kid put himself in a situation where he could get shot. I certainly don't think he is without blame.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[Clifford]

It's not irrational, but it does make trespassing essentially punishable by death. If we establish that self-defense really has nothing to do with someone being physically attacked, and has only to do with "reasonably fearing for one's life" and the spectre that someone could reasonably attack, then does that not open up an entirely new area of justifiable homicide in self-defense?

It amuses me that you think any of this is "new."

I think its wrong, not new. And to your point about me being dumb, I was pointing out the belief could be reasonable without being rooted in any reality of the threat at all. And I'm right. I get that hindsight is different from context. It's not a hard concept.

 

[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.