• 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

year2late said:
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?
Click to expand...

Only if they don't have Thin Mints.

No court in the world would convict you of that.
 

I would argue the closed 6 foot gate was the enterance to his residence. If you say the front door is there, you can say the same if somebody is inside and the bathroom door is there.
 
year2late said:
Warning shots are illegal. but actually shooting someone can be justifiable?
Click to expand...

Where would that warning shot end up? Maybe it would kill an innocent.
 
Peter King said:
I think one warning shot would have protected the man's property (aka the car) and would have saved the boys life.
Click to expand...

What car?

This boy climbed over a 6 foot fence to enter the property.

It was not like it was an open driveway and he was there by mistake.

He made an effort to come onto the property for whatever he was going to do.
 
Mason66 said:
Where would that warning shot end up? Maybe it would kill an innocent.
Click to expand...

Oh....of course it is better to shoot the guy that you think may break into your house. I am curious, does aiming a gun at a presumed guilty individual guarantee no innocent people will be harmed?
 
year2late said:
Oh....of course it is better to shoot the guy that you think may break into your house. I am curious, does aiming a gun at a presumed guilty individual guarantee no innocent people will be harmed?
Click to expand...

What about this are you not getting? You do not put innocents in danger. If the home owner shot a warning shot and the suspect shot at him, who would survive?

It was 2AM and the home owner thought the suspect had a gun.

I hope you are never in that situation, I suppose you would do the wrong thing and end up dead.
 
Mason66 said:
I would argue the closed 6 foot gate was the enterance to his residence. If you say the front door is there, you can say the same if somebody is inside and the bathroom door is there.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there. The law is pretty clear though here that the cleanest shoot is within the house itself, anything outside will require a legitimate justification and even breaching the gate is insufficient(though I think any time a standing structure is breeched it should be assumed an imminent threat).
 

I will tell you why I say this.

I had a friend that bought a car with a cashiers check that didn't clear.

The car was given to him inside an apartments parking garage.

It became a pólice case because of the check and he was charged with burglary of a domicile and held on 1 million dollars bail.

Now if an open parking garage can be considered a domicile, why can't an enclosed yard with a 6 foot fence?
 

So if you are thinking someone is going to burglarize your home who may be armed, you think the SAFEST thing to do would be to OPEN your door, find him and shoot him?

What ever happened to calling 911?
 
I thought I would add the photo of the gate and driveway beyond.
If we believe the homeowner, He ordered a trespasser to freeze, the trespasser
looked like he was reaching for something (not freezing).
http://imgick.nola.com/home/nola-me...eville-street-housejpeg-82e2ee75e0f7e3bd.jpeg
As far as the locked driveway being part of his domicile, local law could answer that
with the repossession laws.
If it is legal to repossess a vehicle in a locked gated driveway, then the driveway is likely not part of his domicile,
If on the other hand it is not legal to repossess a vehicle from a locked gated driveway then it is part
of his domicile.
 
Wow, that's messed up and definitely a miscarriage of justice against your friend. I don't have a good answer for that really, La. also considers the vehicle as an extension of the home. Louisana law can be weird at times, and sometimes seems contradictory(and is) to common sense. We are gun friendly, but defensively selective at times, we are economically friendly, but have odd tax structures, etc.

I think Louisiana wants to strike a balance between justified shooting and property based homicide which would explain the difference to me. Personally I've seen some very bad tresspassers in my time, the type that seemed to want to fight to defend their tresspass, and while I don't think it's worth killing over it is an aggressive situation. If someone breeches the homestead it's automatically assumed a threatening action under our laws, residents of the home are under no compulsion to flee, on the property we may still stand our ground, but may not initiate lethal violence unless threatened in some way, that includes open and standing structures not connected to the home.
 

How does a cashiers check not clear? I thought the point of the cashiers check was that the individual was not responsible for the funds, the bank was. Did the bank go under?

Weird.
 

In the OP there is a link which leads to a page with a video from a news show.

The interview a guy, I don't know who he is, that states that the home owner has a duty to flee if he can.

I am sure you know more about the LA law tan I do but it was clear what he was saying, of course he might be like the Martin supporters and trying to twist tha law to his way of thinking.
 
year2late said:
How does a cashiers check not clear? I thought the point of the cashiers check was that the individual was not responsible for the funds, the bank was. Did the bank go under?

Weird.
Click to expand...

It was not a real cashiers check which is whythe pólice were involved.
 
Louisiana is a state that absolutely establishes self defense. In fact under state law defense of a third party innocent is considered self defense. If you can literally step up to a third party's attacker I see no compulsion to run under law. Of course if you are creating a problem your court defense options shrink. From everything I've come to understand one does not have to retreat under La. law, however if the attacker engages in retreat it must be allowed.
 
Black Manta said:
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?
Click to expand...

He didn't shoot him in his driveway. There is no mention of that in the article or subsequent reporting. They do tell us the kids had been captured on camera hopping the locked fence and was in the postage stamp sized yard approaching the house.
 
specklebang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Any shot fired without lethal intent would have landed the homeowner in jail. You cant discharge a weapon unless you feel your life is at risk. Fire a warning round says to the police "I kinda thought MAYBE I might have been at risk, ya know...maybe...kinda". You are likely to be charged with illegally discharging a firearm.

that being said...

The kid was by his car at 2 AM. I dont have many doubts what the kids intent was. I dont think being at the car or even breaking into the car = justification for firing. It probably should have equalled hey...I have you on camera and have called the police and would REALLY advise you maybe heading home for the night. No valid reason even to approach the kid. Now...if the kid had approached after that...well...all bets are off. Justifiable shooting? Not likely.
 
clownboy said:
He didn't shoot him in his driveway. There is no mention of that in the article or subsequent reporting. They do tell us the kids had been captured on camera hopping the locked fence and was in the postage stamp sized yard approaching the house.
Click to expand...
The news article says the distance between blood impact and shell casing was about 30 feet away didnt it?
 
VanceMack said:
The news article says the distance between blood impact and shell casing was about 30 feet away didnt it?
Click to expand...

No, not the original OP posted nor did the video news report at the end of the OP. However, like I said, the neighbor had a security camera that captured the thief hopping the locked fence and heading towards the house.
 
clownboy said:
No, not the original OP posted nor did the video news report at the end of the OP. However, like I said, the neighbor had a security camera that captured the thief hopping the locked fence and heading towards the house.
Click to expand...
Police said the teen was near Landry's vehicle when he was shot about 2 a.m. Landry's friends said the vehicle was in the driveway behind a gate just a few feet from the house's backdoor.

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 told police that he approached the boy from his front yard, near his vehicle. 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.

Guess this will be another "we'll see" case...
 
clownboy said:
He didn't shoot him in his driveway. There is no mention of that in the article or subsequent reporting. They do tell us the kids had been captured on camera hopping the locked fence and was in the postage stamp sized yard approaching the house.
Click to expand...

Does not matter. The camera showed him scaling the fence. That in itself is not a threat. Was the kid breaking the law? Yes. Was he a threat? No. According to the evidence and under Louisiana castle law unless the person presents a clear and present danger, you cannot just gun them down.

He could have yelled out or called police. He had the time according to the reports I just watched. Now I know we don't have all the details. Based on what we know now, I see no justification here.
 
One of the reports said he yelled out "Freeze" and thought the suspect made a movement.
 
I think I'll concede that you are being more rational than I am.

I think I'm really just trying to sy that warning away the bad guy is a lot more sensible than opening fire. What is the legality of firing a blank?

I suspect this homeowner is in very serious trouble.


 
Id go more with "what is the stupidity level of firing a blank?" You still are open to legal, civil, and criminal action AND you are one less round to the good for defensive purposes. I think "HEY ASSHOLE!!! LEAVE!!!" would be about as close to firing a warning shot as I would come, though frankly...the arming of an 8 round riot gun ought to be more effective that a warning shot. Dood isnt asshole and elbows making tracks after that sound in the middle of the night, then fire at will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.