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

[[icon]]

And by saying that I am not advocating any sort of warning shot.

If only there were other directions to shoot. Blast these federal warning shot regulations.

 

[kentric]

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

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

Not necessary dude. You really need to relax. Whether this guy is telling the truth or not will make or break the defense. Shouldn't be too difficult to see the importance of that and why it is relevant to discuss.

 

[[icon]]

Not necessary dude. You really need to relax.

Ignorant is implying that your view lacks a gravity toward the current facts of the case, and lacks understanding of the real world scenario surrounding the crime rate in the area, the emotional state involved in a situation like this, realistic understanding of how and why these situations play out how they do... hell you have even shown ignorance as to the time and force required to enter a home by force. I'm not saying ignorant as an insult, per se... I'm merely using it as an adjective to reflect your level of competency in discussing this sort of scenario. Nothing personal, GB.

Relax? I wish you guys could see me, there are about 2-3 folks at my office who have ducked in asking what I'm laughing at. Sent them the link to this thread. They're now as amused as I am at the chaka and kentric show. Carry on please.

 

[Clifford]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all you need to calm down.

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

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

Re-read the quote from the HO. The statement reads "made a move, AS IF to reach for something" meaning the HO did not even assert that the kid was reaching for anything.

icon, I can disagree with you about this being a wonderful thing and come from a quite informed perspective. You obviously think that having more freedom to kill someone rather than less is a good thing. You celebrate the fact that you are allowed, by law, to kill someone on your property who is not attacking you, and who has not even shown inclination to attack you. I personally think this is a bad thing that leads to unnecessary use of lethal force when there were other options available.

We will never agree and frankly I am tired of being called idiotic and ignorant by someone who is obviously completely intolerant to any views on the subject other than his own.

 

[matttyl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all you need to calm down.

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

Here's the statement he gave: Landry told police that he approached the boy from his front yard. As he grew closer, he said, the boy made a "move, as if to reach for something" -- possibly a weapon -- so Landry shot him, the warrant states.

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

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

So I'll need a link contradicting this.

I was going to post the exact same quote. What in the HELL do you think the HO "perceived" he was reaching for?! Seriously you're thick. Now answer the man's question.

 

[Clifford]

Read the quote again. What did the homeowner see? Did he say he saw the kid reach for something?

Secondly, I already "answered the man's" question. I'm not giving another one.

 

[matttyl]

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

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

see 641.

The fact that we now know he's a kid is hindsight.

 

[Doug B]

We will never agree and frankly I am tired of being called idiotic and ignorant by someone who is obviously completely intolerant to any views on the subject other than his own.

Come now -- let's not pretend we're apt to change our mind about the matter.

 

[[icon]]

icon, I can disagree with you about this being a wonderful thing and come from a quite informed perspective. You obviously think that having more freedom to kill someone rather than less is a good thing. You celebrate the fact that you are allowed, by law, to kill someone on your property who is not attacking you, and who has not even shown inclination to attack you.

It's almost like you're not even reading the thread.

 

[matttyl]

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

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

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

Not when the gun is pointed in a "non vertical trajectory" at a non-innocent person's head.

 

[BroadwayG]

I hope the kid recovers and tells his side of the story.

 

[Rayderr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all you need to calm down.

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

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

Re-read the quote from the HO. The statement reads "made a move, AS IF to reach for something" meaning the HO did not even assert that the kid was reaching for anything.

icon, I can disagree with you about this being a wonderful thing and come from a quite informed perspective. You obviously think that having more freedom to kill someone rather than less is a good thing. You celebrate the fact that you are allowed, by law, to kill someone on your property who is not attacking you, and who has not even shown inclination to attack you. I personally think this is a bad thing that leads to unnecessary use of lethal force when there were other options available.

We will never agree and frankly I am tired of being called idiotic and ignorant by someone who is obviously completely intolerant to any views on the subject other than his own.

If that's what your argument is based on, you lost.

 

[Clifford]

icon, I can disagree with you about this being a wonderful thing and come from a quite informed perspective. You obviously think that having more freedom to kill someone rather than less is a good thing. You celebrate the fact that you are allowed, by law, to kill someone on your property who is not attacking you, and who has not even shown inclination to attack you.

It's almost like you're not even reading the thread.

He makes ANY motion that comes off as threatening when I yell freeze (and that includes reaching for his waistband), then i shoot. Thankfully I am backed by the law. You can disagree till your blue in the face and that's fine. But the law backs my stance, and for good reason.

any move that comes off as threatening <> threatening someone

sure seems like you are celebrating your freedom to kill someone who is not attacking you, but you haven't been willing to admit to anything thus far and actually own up to what you write and I don't expect that to begin on page 14

 

[matttyl]

And by saying that I am not advocating any sort of warning shot.

If only there were other directions to shoot. Blast these federal warning shot regulations.

Man I'd love to know how to do that "multi quote" thing. All this guy has been "advocating" is firing a warning shot. That would have been the dumbest decision the HO would have made in the entire scenario.

 

[matttyl]

I hope the kid recovers and tells his side of the story.

I think we can all agree on this position. No one is wishing death on the kid.

 

[[icon]]

any move that comes off as threatening <> threatening someone

At 2am in the ghetto when faced with someone who has hurtled a fence to tresspass onto my property, I'm going to have to disagree here.

And with that, I conclude my "clifford" component of this discussion

 

[Doug B]

ure seems like you are celebrating your freedom to kill someone who is not attacking you ...

No one's celebrating anything. Come on now.

And why is the fact that somone is not attacking the shooter necessarily relevant? There are other risk assessments to be made, and they must be made in a split second.

Person A shooting Person B, in and of itself, is a morally neutral act. Circumstances and in-the-moment context -- and definitely NOT hindsight -- must inform the value judgment.

 

[[icon]]

Blame in this scenario:

Kid: 70%
Parents: 20%

Shooter: 10%

 

[Clifford]

Wow, I don't claim to be a bigtime Christian, but I certainly can't get on board with Person A shooting Person B being morally neutral. Pretty sure there's something in the bible about that.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

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

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

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

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

My view is what I posted earlier - there's a 14-year-old "career criminal" as described by his mother with a history of burglaries and thefts, who left his house at 10 pm and never came back, seen on security camera footage riding up and down the street as well as by a homeowner who thought he looked like he was casing houses, but didn't want to be seen as profiling a black kid, who jumped a fence in the middle of the night to illegally access this guy's property.

Obviously, we should assume that the 33-year old appraiser for the Historic District Landmarks Commission who walked out of his house to find a crime being committed is the one who's lying.

 

[Doug B]

Wow, I don't claim to be a bigtime Christian, but I certainly can't get on board with Person A shooting Person B being morally neutral. Pretty sure there's something in the bible about that.

I'm arguing that the act is morally neutral absent of information about situational circumstances and context.

If all I tell you is that "Joe shot Bob", and you have no other informaton about the act ... you can't validly state that "Joe did something wrong".

 

[[icon]]

My view is what I posted earlier - there's a 14-year-old "career criminal" as described by his mother with a history of burglaries and thefts, who left his house at 10 pm and never came back, seen on security camera footage riding up and down the street as well as by a homeowner who thought he looked like he was casing houses, but didn't want to be seen as profiling a black kid, who jumped a fence in the middle of the night to illegally access this guy's property.


Obviously, we should assume that the 33-year old appraiser for the Historic District Landmarks Commission who walked out of his house to find a crime being committed is the one who's lying.

No no no no.... you don't get it.

Hindsight can only be used to support the prosecution's arguement. You're not allowed to use it to defend the shooter. There are rules, guy.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

No, I'm actually a person who once shot someone.

I identify with what this guy's going through, and while his situation is very, very different from my own, I think it's utter ******** to blame the guy who's having a crime perpetrated on his land, as opposed to the guy who's perpetrating the crime, when somebody gets shot.

 

[Clifford]

Wow, I don't claim to be a bigtime Christian, but I certainly can't get on board with Person A shooting Person B being morally neutral. Pretty sure there's something in the bible about that.

I'm arguing that the act is morally neutral absent of information about situational circumstances and context.

If all I tell you is that "Joe shot Bob", and you have no other informaton about the act ... you can't validly state that "Joe did something wrong".

Again, not according to Jesus Christ, but whatever.

 

[Jackstraw]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

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

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

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

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

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

At what point do you fire?

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

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

That's the thing. Even with a gun I would NEVER had gone out in the yard to tangle with an unknown person in the middle of the night. The whole deal with the gun owners and the gun laws is moving the default switch more towards insitigation and escalation when there is no need. Zim didn't need to do what he did but he had a gun and the law on his side so here we go. This guy didn't need to do what he did but same deal.

Gunnies are itching for a fight and the law is allowing them to ratchet up the violence rather than do what they can to deescalate. I don;t want to take people's guns from them but giving them carte blanche to start crap is bad policy. These changes are taking place in a society that ALREADY has 30,000 gun deaths a year. When is enough, enough?

There has to be a time when the answer isn't more guns. There has to be.

 

[Clifford]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

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

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

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

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

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

At what point do you fire?

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

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

That's the thing. Even with a gun I would NEVER had gone out in the yard to tangle with an unknown person in the middle of the night. The whole deal with the gun owners and the gun laws is moving the default switch more towards insitigation and escalation when there is no need. Zim didn't need to do what he did but he had a gun and the law on his side so here we go. This guy didn't need to do what he did but same deal.

Gunnies are itching for a fight and the law is allowing them to ratchet up the violence rather than do what they can to deescalate. I don;t want to take people's guns from them but giving them carte blanche to start crap is bad policy. These changes are taking place in a society that ALREADY has 30,000 gun deaths a year. When is enough, enough?

There has to be a time when the answer isn't more guns. There has to be.

Agree 100%. This is the point I have been trying to make and it has gone nowhere. Save yourself the trouble.

 

[Rayderr]

Is killing to protect property okay?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY.

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

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

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

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

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

At what point do you fire?

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

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

That's the thing. Even with a gun I would NEVER had gone out in the yard to tangle with an unknown person in the middle of the night. The whole deal with the gun owners and the gun laws is moving the default switch more towards insitigation and escalation when there is no need. Zim didn't need to do what he did but he had a gun and the law on his side so here we go. This guy didn't need to do what he did but same deal.

Gunnies are itching for a fight and the law is allowing them to ratchet up the violence rather than do what they can to deescalate. I don;t want to take people's guns from them but giving them carte blanche to start crap is bad policy. These changes are taking place in a society that ALREADY has 30,000 gun deaths a year. When is enough, enough?

There has to be a time when the answer isn't more guns. There has to be.

I've known people who have confronted criminals without guns. Sometimes with bats, sometimes with nothing than their bare hands. Guns aren't necessarily the cause of people being more vigilant in protecting themselves, their property, and their loved ones.

 

[Chaka]

And by saying that I am not advocating any sort of warning shot.

If only there were other directions to shoot. Blast these federal warning shot regulations.

That is not advocating. HTH

 

[Thunderlips]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

 

[Rayderr]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Or doesn't want to go chasing after his dog at 2am.

 

[Emerson Biggens]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

 

[Thunderlips]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Or doesn't want to go chasing after his dog at 2am.

Maybe.... But that doesn't sit right.

 

[Thunderlips]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

 

[Rayderr]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

Didn't seem to deter the 14 year old.

 

[T Bell]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Or doesn't want to go chasing after his dog at 2am.

Maybe.... But that doesn't sit right.

Unless your dog is trained, it's just as likely to get in the way.

I'd probably let my German Shepherd out first if it was me because of how aggressive and territorial and frankly terrifying she is, but I'd probably have kept my old golden retriever in the house.

 

[Thunderlips]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

Didn't seem to deter the 14 year old.

Hence this guys story not jibing well.

There's a fine line between protecting your family and wanting to take your perception of justice into your own hands. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing the later; he heard someone out back, felt that he had enough of living in fear or uncertainty in regards to the neighborhood he lived in and took matters into his own hands.

 

[BroadwayG]

The dog bark could be a lie, just like the hip movement. He could have peeked through a window, saw a kid in his yard and figured he'd sneak around and take him out with one shot to the head. All it takes is a small believable story to come out clean as a whistle.

 

[Rayderr]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

Didn't seem to deter the 14 year old.

Hence this guys story not jibing well.

There's a fine line between protecting your family and wanting to take your perception of justice into your own hands. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing the later; he heard someone out back, felt that he had enough of living in fear or uncertainty in regards to the neighborhood he lived in and took matters into his own hands.

So your theory is that he went out shot the guy in the middle of the street somewhere, and then dragged his body into his yard so he could claim self defense?

 

[cstu]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

It's no fun to deter crime, the fun is in killing the perpetrators.

 

[cstu]

Wow, I don't claim to be a bigtime Christian, but I certainly can't get on board with Person A shooting Person B being morally neutral. Pretty sure there's something in the bible about that.

Thou Shalt Not Kill...Unless Someone Is In Your Yard.

 

[matttyl]

Wow, I don't claim to be a bigtime Christian, but I certainly can't get on board with Person A shooting Person B being morally neutral. Pretty sure there's something in the bible about that.

I'm arguing that the act is morally neutral absent of information about situational circumstances and context.

If all I tell you is that "Joe shot Bob", and you have no other informaton about the act ... you can't validly state that "Joe did something wrong".

Again, not according to Jesus Christ, but whatever.

Pretty sure He also said "Honor thy father and thy mother" as well as "Though shall not steal" and even "Though shall not covet thy neighbors house".

Also, the Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare (1Kings 2:5–6), capital punishment (Leviticus 20:9–16) and self-defence (Exodus 22:2–3)

Just saying.

 

[timschochet]

Many people here have made the point, correctly, that we don't know if Landry is telling the truth about the kid reaching at his waist. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Landry lied about this. There are then, as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. The kid actually did freeze, and Landry shot him anyway. Landry might have done this because he was scared, or because he was pissed off, or both. Either way we'll never know. Then Landry made up the story that the kid was reaching for something to cover himself. Obviously there would be no way to prove any of this in a court of law, therefore no way to convict Landry in this situation. But even if this were somehow provable, I'm not sure I convict Landry anyhow. I do not blame him for being terrified in such a situation; I would be. Perhaps I convict him and suspend his sentence, not sure.

2. The kid turned to flee, and Landry shot him in the back of the head. (Henry Ford has pointed out that the kid could NOT flee without threatening Landry's home, but I'm still not sure on that point, so let's let it go for now.) This can be proved, obviously, from the location of the bullet. If it indeed turns out that the kid was shot in the back of the head, Landry's going to be in trouble, and IMO he deserves to be- though again under the circumstances the penalty may be too harsh for the crime. I should also point out that a few years back a guy named Joe Horn was acquitted in Texas for chasing a robber down the street and shooting him.

3. Landry thought he saw SOME movement by the kid, and fired in panic. Afterward he decided to say that he saw the kid reach for his waist. Doesn't want to admit he panicked, doesn't want to risk jail time. An understandable lie. Guilty of a crime? I sure wouldn't convict him.

 

[matttyl]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

Did you see this dog?!

 

[Thunderlips]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

Didn't seem to deter the 14 year old.

Hence this guys story not jibing well.

There's a fine line between protecting your family and wanting to take your perception of justice into your own hands. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing the later; he heard someone out back, felt that he had enough of living in fear or uncertainty in regards to the neighborhood he lived in and took matters into his own hands.

So your theory is that he went out shot the guy in the middle of the street somewhere, and then dragged his body into his yard so he could claim self defense?

No...he prolly shot him in the yard. But I don't think trespassing on someone's property (CLIMBING A 12 FOOT FENCE!!!!!!......2A.M) warrants getting shot in the head. I'm not even saying the kid's not a #### head. He probably is. He probably wasn't up to any good. All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense that a man who responds to noises in his yard and who has a gun and a dog and a phone to alert the police and the more defensible territory ( he was in the house) AND the element of surprise (he snuck up on this kid) gets himself in the position to be afraid for his life and his family.

 

[Rayderr]

Many people here have made the point, correctly, that we don't know if Landry is telling the truth about the kid reaching at his waist. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Landry lied about this. There are then, as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. The kid actually did freeze, and Landry shot him anyway. Landry might have done this because he was scared, or because he was pissed off, or both. Either way we'll never know. Then Landry made up the story that the kid was reaching for something to cover himself. Obviously there would be no way to prove any of this in a court of law, therefore no way to convict Landry in this situation. But even if this were somehow provable, I'm not sure I convict Landry anyhow. I do not blame him for being terrified in such a situation; I would be. Perhaps I convict him and suspend his sentence, not sure.

2. The kid turned to flee, and Landry shot him in the back of the head. (Henry Ford has pointed out that the kid could NOT flee without threatening Landry's home, but I'm still not sure on that point, so let's let it go for now.) This can be proved, obviously, from the location of the bullet. If it indeed turns out that the kid was shot in the back of the head, Landry's going to be in trouble, and IMO he deserves to be- though again under the circumstances the penalty may be too harsh for the crime. I should also point out that a few years back a guy named Joe Horn was acquitted in Texas for chasing a robber down the street and shooting him.

3. Landry thought he saw SOME movement by the kid, and fired in panic. Afterward he decided to say that he saw the kid reach for his waist. Doesn't want to admit he panicked, doesn't want to risk jail time. An understandable lie. Guilty of a crime? I sure wouldn't convict him.

If the kid was shot in the back of the head, I'm sure we would've already heard that by now.

 

[matttyl]

No...he prolly shot him in the yard. But I don't think trespassing on someone's property (CLIMBING A 12 FOOT FENCE!!!!!!......2A.M) warrants getting shot in the head. I'm not even saying the kid's not a #### head. He probably is. He probably wasn't up to any good. All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense that a man who responds to noises in his yard and who has a gun and a dog and a phone to alert the police and the more defensible territory ( he was in the house) AND the element of surprise (he snuck up on this kid) gets himself in the position to be afraid for his life and his family.

Yeah, I'm going to let my old likely near blind 10+ year old boxer outside to bark to his heart's content and wake up all my neighbors at 2 in the morning.

Yeah, I'm going to call the police because my old dog heard something coming from outside in a heavily populated city, and wait 15-20 minutes till they show up.

 

[timschochet]

Many people here have made the point, correctly, that we don't know if Landry is telling the truth about the kid reaching at his waist. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Landry lied about this. There are then, as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. The kid actually did freeze, and Landry shot him anyway. Landry might have done this because he was scared, or because he was pissed off, or both. Either way we'll never know. Then Landry made up the story that the kid was reaching for something to cover himself. Obviously there would be no way to prove any of this in a court of law, therefore no way to convict Landry in this situation. But even if this were somehow provable, I'm not sure I convict Landry anyhow. I do not blame him for being terrified in such a situation; I would be. Perhaps I convict him and suspend his sentence, not sure.

2. The kid turned to flee, and Landry shot him in the back of the head. (Henry Ford has pointed out that the kid could NOT flee without threatening Landry's home, but I'm still not sure on that point, so let's let it go for now.) This can be proved, obviously, from the location of the bullet. If it indeed turns out that the kid was shot in the back of the head, Landry's going to be in trouble, and IMO he deserves to be- though again under the circumstances the penalty may be too harsh for the crime. I should also point out that a few years back a guy named Joe Horn was acquitted in Texas for chasing a robber down the street and shooting him.

3. Landry thought he saw SOME movement by the kid, and fired in panic. Afterward he decided to say that he saw the kid reach for his waist. Doesn't want to admit he panicked, doesn't want to risk jail time. An understandable lie. Guilty of a crime? I sure wouldn't convict him.

If the kid was shot in the back of the head, I'm sure we would've already heard that by now..

Not necessarily. The shooting took place last Friday.

 

[Henry Ford]

So the guy hears his dog barking about something.....goes outside with his gun.....but leaves the dog inside? Makes no sense unless he's looking to be able to silently come up on this kid to confront him.

Dogs should probably be banned, this homeowner's dog in essence got this poor baby killed.

Why would you want that? Dogs are actually pretty good deterrants of crime.

Didn't seem to deter the 14 year old.

Hence this guys story not jibing well.

There's a fine line between protecting your family and wanting to take your perception of justice into your own hands. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing the later; he heard someone out back, felt that he had enough of living in fear or uncertainty in regards to the neighborhood he lived in and took matters into his own hands.

Sure. Again, there's a career criminal in the act of committing a crime, when a civil servant without a record shoots him on his own property. Who would we blame if not the homeowner?

 

[matttyl]

Interesting read on the family dynamic of the kid, if you're interested.....

http://thehayride.com/2013/07/landry-case-update-marshall-coulters-brother-speaks/

 

[Rayderr]

Many people here have made the point, correctly, that we don't know if Landry is telling the truth about the kid reaching at his waist. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Landry lied about this. There are then, as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. The kid actually did freeze, and Landry shot him anyway. Landry might have done this because he was scared, or because he was pissed off, or both. Either way we'll never know. Then Landry made up the story that the kid was reaching for something to cover himself. Obviously there would be no way to prove any of this in a court of law, therefore no way to convict Landry in this situation. But even if this were somehow provable, I'm not sure I convict Landry anyhow. I do not blame him for being terrified in such a situation; I would be. Perhaps I convict him and suspend his sentence, not sure.

2. The kid turned to flee, and Landry shot him in the back of the head. (Henry Ford has pointed out that the kid could NOT flee without threatening Landry's home, but I'm still not sure on that point, so let's let it go for now.) This can be proved, obviously, from the location of the bullet. If it indeed turns out that the kid was shot in the back of the head, Landry's going to be in trouble, and IMO he deserves to be- though again under the circumstances the penalty may be too harsh for the crime. I should also point out that a few years back a guy named Joe Horn was acquitted in Texas for chasing a robber down the street and shooting him.

3. Landry thought he saw SOME movement by the kid, and fired in panic. Afterward he decided to say that he saw the kid reach for his waist. Doesn't want to admit he panicked, doesn't want to risk jail time. An understandable lie. Guilty of a crime? I sure wouldn't convict him.

If the kid was shot in the back of the head, I'm sure we would've already heard that by now..

Not necessarily. The shooting took place last Friday.

It's not that difficult to tell what's an entry wound and what's an exit wound.