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: 13
9
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Here ya go

Basically, it boils down to both of them being guilty of douchebaggery.

They both have a long and violent history.

She went in to the garage to get her gun rather than exiting through either the front or the back door. Came back in, shot at her boyfriend's head and missed.

She was offered a 3 year plead deal but chose to fight under SYG, she failed miserably to present her case and got hit with mandatory minimum sentencing.




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



Alexander was convicted of attempted murder


There's your answer. It's a valid point though...the line between a warning shot, and actually shooting to kill.

The statute I mentioned concerned the discharge of a firearm only.
www.lawserver.com...

Like firing a shot up in the air.

Legally, it just may be better to shoot and kill the trespasser.

But, Alexander had other issues:


Two children were with him when she fired a shot in his direction, and she was charged with three counts of aggravated assault.



But a jury agreed with prosecutors that the law didn't apply because she left during the argument, got a gun and returned to confront him, WJXT reported.



But Corey argued that Stand Your Law did not apply because Alexander acted in anger. The judge agreed, saying that by returning to the house, she showed she was not in fear for her life.

Gray had been arrested twice on domestic battery allegations, but Alexander had been charged with domestic battery four months after the shooting, Jacksonville.com reported.





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



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yes i read it.

I thought you were questioning why she got 20, which was that they charged as assault with firearm, not firing warning shots which is what she claimed. They believed she was shooting at the man. Warning shots was her version which did not fly.

She stood by warning shots, self defense and SYG to which the judge said NO. Self defense was out.

Maybe someone can find verdicts and sentences for only warning shots.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

thanks for the thread, i'll read it over cause i didn't follow this case at all but the verdict sure seemed extreme given what i had heard via msm.

please don't get me wrong, i still believe warning shots aren't a good idea, ever.
however, if there are circumstances when they're appropriate, please be specific as i need to learn.

as for this LA case, i would have shot the intruder as well.
here, defense of property is a legitimate reason.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I think the woman's case boils down to shooting warnings toward someone in a dispute can easily been seen as an attempt to shoot them, which is a more serious crime.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Her problem was that she left, got the gun, and came back.

This shot down the Stand Your Ground defense (she wasn't in fear for her life if she came back). It showed intent, and made the State's case for 2nd degree murder.


I still say that in this Louisiana case, the guy will (and should) walk. (and I'm still puzzled by how a murder charge applies with the victim is ALIVE).
edit on 31-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

Yes the woman leaving blew it.

The news was using the wrong term in the LA case at first, or so it seems. The next day, think it was NOLA, used attempted. Not sure if at first it was just bad reporting or purposeful use to make it more sensational. Maybe just more poor fact checking.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

thanks for the source link.
i didn't think you left it out on purpose but then again i wasn't sure which statute it was either.
there are so many


from what i'd heard about the lady's incident, it appears she admitted firing a warning shot and when i heard that, i guessed she would get the 'mimimum' sentence.

that's probably why i'm not surprised at the sentence and why i'm confused that there may exist certain circumstances when a warning shot is appropriate.

i wish i lived in an unicorporated area where such was no big deal but they seem to be less and less available



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

shhhhhh, it's the agenda


(and I'm still puzzled by how a murder charge applies with the victim is ALIVE).
me too.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 

I'm pretty broke right now. could I have your home address please?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 





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?


No, it makes them a POTENTIALLY violent threat. There is a big difference, but still a very real threat.

Maybe you don't have a family and live by yourself. Most people have loved ones to protect. I have my wife and my mother in law and (sometimes) my sister live with me.

There is an abundance of stories all over the web about sociopaths breaking into peoples house late at night to rape/rob/kill. Your posts seem extremely naive to this fact and you would really rather just assume someone that just hopped over your fence at an hour when nobody awake is up to any good has good intentions?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I think its because they charge him if it looks like the "victim" is going to die or be in critical condition. If the guy happens to miraculously live then they drop the charges.

I think its because it would be too easy to beat someone until they are comatose and then leave for mexico.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


By the letter of the state law, the kid could be a vegetable, but as long as he's "alive", it can't be murder.
That's why the charge is so puzzling. Really academic though, with the circumstances, I can't see how any jury would convict.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I think its time for us to start thinking about passing laws where if a teen is caught committing a crime that if convicted the parents do a little jail time.

Things like if a teen gets caught stealing a car the parents get say 30 days for not maintaining parental control.

Out here in calif we get a lot of illegals that send there kids out to steal things that the parents sell at swapmeets.

I have seen areas where if you put out a lawn ornament or left a chair on the front porch it would be gone the next morning and being sold at a swap meet the next weekend.

The cops know about this but can not prove it so they do nothing.

If you catch these teens all you get is "no hable inglés" but when you talk to other teens that know him you find he speaks english and has been going to school in the US for many years.

Some will even try to fool the courts with this "no hable inglés" BS



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 





When the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, aggravated arson, aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated burglary, armed robbery, assault by drive-by shooting, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, simple robbery, terrorism, cruelty to juveniles, or second degree cruelty to juveniles.


www.legis.state.la.us...

It seems like the wording "or to inflict great bodily harm" could apply to the guy.

But still, like you said, a court will most likely throw this one out. LA is one of those states that actually protects the homeowner from defending his life or property.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 



I think its time for us to start thinking about passing laws where if a teen is caught committing a crime that if convicted the parents do a little jail time.


Problem is, the state has taken away most of a parent's tools to prevent it, so it can't then charge the parents...

Can a parent lock a teen in his room? No.
Can a parent spank a teen? Not in any meaningful way.
Without the above two options, they can't enforce other suggested punishments (such as removal of privileges, grounding, etc.)

So how then, is a parent to be held responsible, when the enforcement tools are taken away?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by KawRider9
 


Home protection shouldn't entitle someone to shoot anyone they see on their property, whatever the level of threat they present.



troll alert



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   


Home protection shouldn't entitle someone to shoot anyone they see on their property, whatever the level of threat they present.


In other words, Home owner must allow man with gun or weapon to kill every other family member. Home owner and family threatened with deadly force, too bad.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join