Maybe he charged the home owner like the other case we have been talking about.
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.
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.
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....
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?
NOLA is a city that never sleeps, no official bar closing law, so there are always late night partiers somwhere in the city.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....
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.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.
I think one warning shot would have protected the man's property (aka the car) and would have saved the boys life.
The only problem with that is warning shots are illegal.
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
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.
Landry's large dog started barking, which alerted Landry to the teen being inside his yard, according to Landry's friends.
I think one warning shot would have protected the man's property (aka the car) and would have saved the boys life.
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.
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.
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.”
Warning shots are illegal. but actually shooting someone can be justifiable?
Warning shots are illegal. but actually shooting someone can be justifiable?
The only problem with that is warning shots are illegal.
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?
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?
(Example only.)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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?