It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Seems at odds with this:


When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.


Sorry, but if I find someone on my property at 2am, I think it is a PERFECTLY REASONABLE assumption that they intend me harm. Especially if they had to climb over a fence to do it. I'm pretty sure any jury would feel the same. If they take this to trial, they are just going to embarrass themselves. Heck, they even arrested him for the WRONG charge (i.e. murder).... I'd bet pretty good money on the verdict in this one.




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


How is someone just being on your property at any time deemed an imminent threat to the lives of the homeowners? Yes, it looks mighty suspicious if it's 2am and they've climbed over an 8ft fence, but that in itself doesn't make them a violent threat? How would you feel if it had been your neighbour's teenage son fooling around with his pals and who had climbed over to retrieve something, that you shot without giving any kind of warning?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



While such tragedies are terrible to think of and ultimately a problem is growing in this country, it is going to only get worse and worse as more and more come out, where it is a case of an adult shooting and potentially killing a child


No, it's because a WHITE adult killed a BLACK child. Even though race had NO factor in it.

This is going to sadly go national again.....

The guy sees a prowler, at 2am (so you know there wasn't a lot of light), who climbed his fence. He shoots. I seriously doubt he was able to determine the kid's age or race, but he did know here was a stranger in his yard, at 2am, when he has a wife and kid to protect.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



I disagree with the concept that you must draw only when it is time to shoot. That is not in any of the CCW laws.


That incorrect, friend, and it flies in the face of everything taught. Sorry for the long quote but its all relevant:


A few weeks ago I got a frantic email from a fellow who wanted me to be an expert witness in a gun related case. He included his lawyer’s phone number, so I gave the lawyer a call to see what happened.

Here’s what he told me: His client lives in an apartment building with underground parking and assigned spaces. For one reason or another, his client decided to park in another person’s spot (We’ll call him Mr. T.). Well, Mr. T. was not a happy camper about this, so he left a nasty note on the client’s windshield along the lines of “never park in my spot again or bad things will happen.”

The client did not appreciate the note so he wrote an even “friendlier” note and taped it to the wall on Mr. T’s spot. To make a long story short, these two very mature adults went back and forth trading nasty notes with each other… until one day, the client caught Mr. T. in the parking garage writing one of these notes.

A verbal argument ensued…

And the client said he turned his back to Mr. T. to read a note which had been taped on the parking garage wall. And that as he was reading the note, he thought he saw Mr. T. raise his hand over his head as if he was going to hit the client in the back of the head. At that moment, the client drew his firearm as he turned around and told Mr. T. to back off. (Mr. T. then called the police and the client was charged with brandishing.)

After this long story, the lawyer asked me if I would be an expert witness and I said “sure I’ll do it, but you’re not going to like what I have to say”. The reason being, the client should not have drawn his gun, because this was not a deadly force situation.

You see, even though I’m not a lawyer myself (thank goodness) you have to remember that in order to draw your gun you must be in immediate fear for your life. You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man.
www.usacarry.com...




What you need to do is to be able to articulate reasonable concern of immediate harm. Whereas you must be prepared to shoot, you don't have to shoot. Someone says they are going to kill you and pulls out a knife but is still across a busy highway, you can still articulate reason to pull your weapon without him having to be within knifing range.

I never said you HAVE to shoot once it’s out. Obviously if you pull it out to shoot and the person instantly runs away before you pull the trigger then you would not shoot. I’m just saying that you should NEVER pull it out unless you’re going to use it immediately and you should NEVER flash it as a deterrent. That would be irresponsible.



I disagree with the point. He articulated that he was in immediate danger of being assaulted. It would be a good drawdown here. If the cops thought he showed the gun to win an argument, that is brandishing. If he pulled his gun because he thought he was going to be struck, that is a defensive move. A CCW holder is not obligated to be struck or assaulted before he legally pulls his weapon...he just needs to articulate that he had a reasonable fear for his safety. Mr T's defense lawyer could get him off if he could convince the jury that he really did see a potential strike coming and isn't lying about the situation. Since he called the police right after, I tend to believe him.
edit on 31-7-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


How is someone just being on your property at any time deemed an imminent threat to the lives of the homeowners? Yes, it looks mighty suspicious if it's 2am and they've climbed over an 8ft fence, but that in itself doesn't make them a violent threat, does it? How would you feel if it had been your neighbour's teenage son fooling around with his pals and who had climbed over to retrieve something, that you shot without giving any kind of warning?

reply to post by Gazrok
 


So, you don't actually have to behave violently in those places, you just have to be dumb enough to be caught on someone's property when you weren't invited and it's the death penalty?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 



How is someone just being on your property at any time deemed an imminent threat to the lives of the homeowners? Yes, it looks mighty suspicious if it's 2am and they've climbed over an 8ft fence, but that in itself doesn't make them a violent threat? How would you feel if it had been your neighbour's teenage son fooling around with his pals and who had climbed over to retrieve something, that you shot without giving any kind of warning?


They can wait until morning like an intelligent person. Then retrieve it with my permission. Do you really think someone jumps someone's fence at night without realizing the potential danger of it? Heck, where I live, you'd be lucky if the owner comes out, just so he can call off the dogs!

Seriously, one of my little dogs got lost once (we found her), and we went around about a mile radius. Every one of my neighbors (I'm in the country a bit) has Pitbulls, Rotts, etc. it seems. Anyone jumping a fence here at night is an absolute idiot.

Sorry, if someone comes on my property late at night, I'm not going to just follow them around until they try and rape one of the gals. To be honest though, I will fire a warning shot first (though the law does not require this)...and if they run, I won't fire after them (unless they pause). I simply wouldn't want the kind of complication this guy is dealing with.


So, you don't actually have to behave violently in those places, you just have to be dumb enough to be caught on someone's property when you weren't invited and it's the death penalty?


Yes, if after sundown and after gates locked, etc. This kid had to climb an 8' fence at 2am. He wasn't selling Bibles.....




edit on 31-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

I believe is stating your are in the dwelling or vehicle and the person is attempting entry to your location. EG: car jacking, home entry.

I am just trying to verify what is written in the law.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Sounds like what happened here. He's in the house, kid is trying to enter.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Here is an interesting Texas law.



1868 Cattle Ranchers Law in Texas which still is in effect to date states you can shoot anyone that trespasses onto your property can be shot because they deem harm to you and your livelihood.

This law has been challenged for over 100 years, but Texas makes the defense that a person who trespasses onto your property likely does not have a legal right to be there and also does not intend not to harm you or deprive you of your property and or life.

edit on 7/31/2013 by roadgravel because: tag



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Florida law is pretty similar in this regard (and for the same reason). It is mostly to discourage cattle rustling and horse stealing. And yes, I have horses, and yes, this (horse theft) still goes on. In addition, it's a business, we board horses, and I have a responsibility to protect our borders' pets.
edit on 31-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Sounds like what happened here. He's in the house, kid is trying to enter.


If that is found to be the case then he is probably justified. I would think a jury will side with him.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Florida law is pretty similar in this regard (and for the same reason). It is mostly to discourage cattle rustling and horse stealing. And yes, I have horses, and yes, this (horse theft) still goes on. In addition, it's a business, we board horses, and I have a responsibility to protect our borders' pets.
edit on 31-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)


Texas law is about the same. Attempting felonies against persons or property, or defense of another.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

sure hope 'warning shots' are legal in your region or this ...

To be honest though, I will fire a warning shot first...and if they run, I won't fire after them (unless they pause). I simply wouldn't want the kind of complication this guy is dealing with.
will bring you much more trouble and complications than you seem to think.

in FL, that's 20yrs, almost automatically.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


I love how in your responses, that you expect people, home owners for that matter, to lower expectations of others, and just basically sit by, while people violate property rights.

This is very simple in nature really. If the punk turd didn't violate the rights of someone else, he would not have been shot.

You sound like how Korean taxi cabs operate. If you hire them, and they get into an accident, you, the customer, are at fault. Because after all, you hired them and they more than likely wouldn't be in the collision.

Don't want to get shot, don't violate someone else's rights. Plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yeah, we're not in the city, unincorporated area. We hear gunshots all the time around here...mostly farmers scaring off vultures. I'd actually be shocked if a neighbor even called the police hearing the shot...though that late, they might.

In FL, you can even legally fire in the city (on private property and as long as you aren't exclusively residential zoning), as long as it does not pass over another dwelling. (though I wouldn't recommend it, it is perfectly legal by statute)....


in FL, that's 20yrs, almost automatically.


By what law? Even in a public area, it's a misdemeanor. (and is nullified if in defense of life OR PROPERTY)

Here's the statute:


Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, who knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for residential use commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Forest Service.


(subsections 2 and 3 apply to vehicles...do NOT be in a vehicle when firing or THAT is a felony)








edit on 31-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Dont want to face intense questioning and a possible murder trial, don't shoot teenagers or anybody else in the head, just because they are on your property. Well, not unless you have full cctv coverage that backs up everything you claim as justification, that is.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

not debating statutes but considering this woman has been sentenced to 20, they obviously found a way to do it.

www.cbsnews.com...
Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander couldn't receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum.
not sure i understand why her case wasn't reduced to a misdemeanor or accepted as SYG given the 'protection order' in effect but it is what it is.

i understand what you say about unicorporated areas but can you help me understand what's with the above case ? is it just a bad judicial decision or perhaps poor representation of the defendant ?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by macman
 


Dont want to face intense questioning and a possible murder trial, don't shoot teenagers or anybody else in the head, just because they are on your property. Well, not unless you have full cctv coverage that backs up everything you claim as justification, that is.



Oh, so the rights of the Criminal Turd trump that of the property owner???

Here is some free advise. Stay in your home country, as you sound like you are very much adapted to the Govt taking care of you.
But, this is all suggested to a self stated Foreign Criminal.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

She shes warning shots. Prosecution says aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Using a firearm gets a person 20.



Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 

roadgravel, thanks for the input but that wasn't what i was looking for from Gazrok.

please see our exchange above to understand why i posed the question i did regarding her case.

Gazrok indicated that firing a warning shot (even within city limits) is lawful under certain circumstances via the linked statute but provided no source.

if that is so, or at the most a 1st degree misdemeanor, i'd like to understand how this woman was railroaded by the prosecution and sentenced to 20yrs.

i was taught to never fire warning shots unless you wanted to go to jail for a long time.
if i was taught wrong, i'd like to know.

no offense to Gazrok but he didn't include the source by statute number or link and now i'm confused.

if it is ok to fire warning shots, i'd like to understand which circumstances make it 'appropriate'.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join