• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New Orleans teen shot in the head by man who thought he was a burglar

This isn't a Martin/Zimmerman OP. It should be in the gun control thread by someone arguing for gun control or on the law board, but not this Zimmerman sub-board. The OP has NO RELATIONSHIP whatsoever the to topics and issues around TM/GZ.
 
Maybe he charged the home owner like the other case we have been talking about.

Roderick Scott violated the Duty to Retreat Statute of NY State and beat it. Surely Sharpton will claim racial involvement in this Louisiana case and Obama will claim if he had another son he would look just like this boy. Just can't wait for the race baiters to get started on this one.
 
I am more disconcerted by his choice to shoot the kid in the head. Obviously, his need to protect his vulnerable family led to a decision which could land him behind bars, leaving them even more vulnerable for who knows how long.
 
I am more disconcerted by his choice to shoot the kid in the head. Obviously, his need to protect his vulnerable family led to a decision which could land him behind bars, leaving them even more vulnerable for who knows how long.


I have to agree with you there. This boy may still die. What then? As I mentioned before, I'm waiting for the race hustlers to get involved, rather than let the law take it's course.
 
Damn, I think the girl scouts selling cookies are trying to kill me....can I shoot to kill when they step past the no solicitor signs?
 
Damn, I think the girl scouts selling cookies are trying to kill me....can I shoot to kill when they step past the no solicitor signs?

Only if you then create Girl Scout cookies made from real Girl Scouts.
 
Only if you then create Girl Scout cookies made from real Girl Scouts.

Well, I think the law would be more favorable to killing trespassing girl scouts than killing them for dessert.
 
It's sad when I agree with (shudder) Liberal/Progressives, but shooting someone in your driveway is just so irresponsible to me. Of course I am only looking at the initial story, maybe we are missing something?
 
If you read the article, you'll see that the teen was shot in the driveway. He should have drug him into the house. I'm joking, of course. But Castle Laws should not be used as a license to kill all comers. I don't know what "the whole story" is, but if they charged him, apparently his story didn't convince them that shooting this person was necessary. The article also mentions that an unidentified witness's story differs from the shooter's account. Hard to believe there'd be a witness at 2 AM in the morning....

I think one warning shot would have protected the man's property (aka the car) and would have saved the boys life.
 
It's sad when I agree with (shudder) Liberal/Progressives, but shooting someone in your driveway is just so irresponsible to me. Of course I am only looking at the initial story, maybe we are missing something?

That's why I'm going to wait until there are more facts known. As we all know, the media is pretty unreliable, and new information usually always turns up in these type of stories.
 
If you read the article, you'll see that the teen was shot in the driveway. He should have drug him into the house. I'm joking, of course. But Castle Laws should not be used as a license to kill all comers. I don't know what "the whole story" is, but if they charged him, apparently his story didn't convince them that shooting this person was necessary. The article also mentions that an unidentified witness's story differs from the shooter's account. Hard to believe there'd be a witness at 2 AM in the morning....
NOLA is a city that never sleeps, no official bar closing law, so there are always late night partiers somwhere in the city.

Castle law in La. protects a breach of the domicile unquestionably, but on the property outside there must be a percieved threat to the owner's person, IOW you can't just shoot someone for tresspass, but if you tell them to leave and they show any hint of violence it's perfectly legal to engage them.
 
I lived in Southeast Louisiana for about 20-years.

Not wishing this shooter any hard luck, but i believe that he may have a problem. If the young man had been in his house, it would be a different story, I would never shoot someone just for being in my yard, but I might sic my dogs on them.
There was a successful property defense in my area not too long ago, but the reason was based upon the actions of the tresspasser, I'm forgetting all of the details but it boils down to a man hiding under a boat on the property, being told to leave, and charging the resident aggressively. The tresspasser got blasted, after questioning and evidence gathering it was obvious he made the initial threat and the shoot was legal.
 
The only problem with that is warning shots are illegal.

Warning shots are illegal. but actually shooting someone can be justifiable?
 
Unarmed teen shot inside homeowner's fenced yard, but not breaking into home, NOPD warrant says
Unarmed teen shot inside homeowner's fenced yard, but not breaking into home, NOPD warrant says | NOLA.com

This article has two critical facts that haven't been noted so far as I have read

1:
According to an NOPD arrest warrant, Landry shot Coulter from 30 feet away, evidenced by the distance between the blood found on the ground and the single bullet casing outside Landry's house in the 700 block of Mandeville Street.

2:
Landry's large dog started barking, which alerted Landry to the teen being inside his yard, according to Landry's friends.

So Landry has made a misstatement, according to the story that he "approached the boy from his front yard" but the bullet casing was 30 feet from where the boy fell after being shot.

If you have a "large dog", wouldn't you let it out first?
 
I think one warning shot would have protected the man's property (aka the car) and would have saved the boys life.

You never fire a warning shot. It will be perceived as an unnecessary act, and by definition, it is. If you draw your weapon, you draw it on the threat, and if you fire your weapon, you fire it at the threat. It's that simple. Only idiots like our Vice President, Joe Biden, think that firing a warning shot is a cool idea...
 
A shot (even a blank) fired in the air or the snap-crackle of a stun-gun would have resolved the problem just as effectively and the defender wouldn't be in this kind of trouble.

Based on the article I read, it appears that there may have been a belief that the kid was going for a gun...

Zimmerman Redux | Merritt Landry | Louisiana Self-defense

The Hazouri recording purportedly shows the two teens talking in the middle of the street outside of Landry’s house at about 1:44AM. One wore a dark tank top and the other wore a light tank top. The teen in the light tank top climbed over Landry’s fence and into the yard. Landry’s large dog began to bark, alerting Landry to the intruder.


The Landry’s pet dog which alerted the homeowner to the presence of an intruder within his gated and secured driveway at 2:00AM.

An anonymous friend has stated that Landry’s father reported his son believed he was shooting an intruder. In terms of the victim being an intruder upon secured property, this seems a reasonable perception. Whether the victim intended to intrude into the dwelling is not known, or that under the circumstances a reasonable person would have believed the victim was intending to do so, is less clear.


The locked gate over which the intruder scaled at 2:00AM, shortly before approaching the home’s rear door and being shot through head by homeowner Merritt Landry.

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

At this point it sure sounds justified... Of course I am making that statement without all the evidence.

I found this piece interesting, though:

Earlier in the evening, another neighbor had seen the apparent friend biking around the neighborhood at 8:00PM. This neighbor, like Landry a “white caucasian,” considered calling the police, but decided against this for fear of being perceived as having racially profiled a “kid who’s just biking.”

if the guy hadn't been worried about being labeled a racist, it's very likely that the kid would not have climbed the gate and been shot. I wonder if his decision not to call had anything to do with how Zimmerman was raked over the coals.
 
Warning shots are illegal. but actually shooting someone can be justifiable?

Yes, a warning shot is an indication that you aren't really in fear for your life.
 
Warning shots are illegal. but actually shooting someone can be justifiable?

The bullet is going to come down eventually so it is better to shoot the threat rather than potentially putting innocent lives in danger.
 
The only problem with that is warning shots are illegal.

That is insane, but still, rather arrested for firing warning shots than for murder/manslaughter.
 
Damn, I think the girl scouts selling cookies are trying to kill me....can I shoot to kill when they step past the no solicitor signs?

depends ... Florida, probably ...
 
This article has two critical facts that haven't been noted so far as I have read

1:

2:

So Landry has made a misstatement, according to the story that he "approached the boy from his front yard" but the bullet casing was 30 feet from where the boy fell after being shot.

If you have a "large dog", wouldn't you let it out first?

At this point I say there is not enough information. As I believe I stated before, let the law take it's course.
 
See, I agree with that; but I think we're in the minority. If Castle Laws are read and interpreted that one can walk out one's front door, confront and shoot someone in one's driveway? I don't support it. I think it's wrong. Of course, he was arrested and charged, so the courts will decide -- just as it should be. You cannot shoot and kill someone because he's letting the air out of your tires.
(Example only.)




About thirty years ago when I bought a handgun, I did a little thinking, and I came to the conclusion that I would never shoot someone just because they were in my fenced, posted yard.
We can replace stolen property, we can't replace a human life. Besides the obvious human consequences, shooting anyone who is in your yard, looking for something to steal is just not a good idea legally. You are likely to have a legal problem. Everyone needs to do a little thinking about this, before they're faced with a life or death situation.
 
I am more disconcerted by his choice to shoot the kid in the head. Obviously, his need to protect his vulnerable family led to a decision which could land him behind bars, leaving them even more vulnerable for who knows how long.

I am not even sure he aimed at the head.

It was 2AM and dark so maybe he shot and it just happened to hit the guy in the head.

We won't know until the trial.
 
Back
Top Bottom