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

reply to post by butcherguy


I said they cause damage, not that they were a threat to modern society. Admit it, your own teens wouldn't be half as frightening if you didn't leave so many guns lying about.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Admit it, your own teens wouldn't be half as frightening if you didn't leave so many guns lying about.

We don't leave them lying about. They are expensive.
If we didn't have them, the teens still would.

Kind of like heroin. It is illegal.
Yet teens can buy it just about anywhere, without showing an ID or filling out a form.
I have to have a clean record and fill out forms to own a gun.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Well, I haven't read this whole thread, but I see alot of responses on here.

I know that I am glad that I live in a state (Louisiana) that has open carry laws, and protects the property owner that has someone suspicious crawling around their property, who is up to no good obviously.

I bet that scares the hell out of you Brits and the rest of the anti-gun people.

The homeowner had every right to shoot the kid. I've seen these idiot "thug" wannabees hold their hand down their pants like they have a gun in there but its just a trick. I would have shot this kid too.

With the shooting and subsequent trial and verdict of George Zimmerman, and perusing the news stories of the day, this came to my attention, another case of where a child was shot.

At the ages of fourteen and seventeen are they really "children" anymore?

I've seen that word a whole lot on the first page of this thread. I don't think there was any race issue in this instance.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


They're not holding their hands down their pants to pretend that they're "packing heat". It's a dominance, alpha, type gesture. They're holding their junk to intimidate other males and to attract females. They're trying to put some credence in the stereotype. I see it up here, too.

I, too, put the majority of the blame on the parents. Granted, you can't keep a teen couped up in the house. I was young once too and I'd often sneak out late at night. But the parents in this case, they need to be held accountable to some extent because this kid, as his brother put it, was a career criminal. Meaning, he's been around the block a few times.

I'm anxious to see what toxicology tests show, if any were preformed.

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.

You do realize that home protection does include you and your family, just because some one is breaking into your home does not mean they are there to steal something? So by that logic if someone breaks into your house, is armed with anything, to kill or rape you or a family member its not ok to defend yourself? That is pure pure idiocy at it's finest.. We have a Darwin winner in the making...

Grim

reply to post by Grimmley


Where did I ever say that defending yourself or others from imminent harm was off the table? If I'm stood waiting with a gun in my hand and can see everything that a trespasser is doing, there is no way anyone is getting harmed other than the person doing the trespassing, should they behave in a threatening manner. And, if a threatening manner includes a person reaching into their pocket, then Trayvon Martin had every right to try and kill George Zimmerman when he reached for his phone. You agree with that, don't you?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Grimmley

 

Where did I ever say that defending yourself or others from imminent harm was off the table? If I'm stood waiting with a gun in my hand and can see everything that a trespasser is doing, there is no way anyone is getting harmed other than the person doing the trespassing, should they behave in a threatening manner. And, if a threatening manner includes a person reaching into their pocket, then Trayvon Martin had every right to try and kill George Zimmerman when he reached for his phone. You agree with that, don't you?

So any time a person reaches into their pocket in a public place you should kill them? Walmart would be a dangerous place if that was the case.

What you are missing here is the fact that this incident happened on private property guarded by an 8 foot high fence, at 2 am. Not a public area.
Being stupid will get you killed.
Louisiana state law says that what the man did was legal.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

The Castle defense law is rooted in common law and has stronger "footing" than Stand Your Ground; however, burglary is not a capital offense. The alleged burglar has to have entered your home and/or he is confronted as he is attempted to enter and you are afraid for your life (ie has a deadly weapon or is attacking you).

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

At what point does a child stop being a child and is then considered an adult? Is it due to age or the ability to reason? As you argue, that a 14 year old should not be considered such, yet what about the 13 year old who was a part of killing his father, is he not a child? Or the 10 year old who shot and killed his mother, do we consider him an adult?

There is a disturbing trend in the country where those under the age of consent, tend to be committing felonies. It is something that we need to look at and perhaps try to change the direction of.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Homeowner Merritt Landry, 33, who lives in Marigny, allegedly shot Marshall Coulter after fearing for his safety, and told friends and family he thought the teen had a gun. Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

Do you gun owners really think that is a justifiable reason for shooting somebody in the head who isn't actually threatening you at the point you are pulling the trigger?

If you face someone who jumped a security fence at 2 AM and is reaching in his waistband, you have reasonable expectation that you are in an immediate threat situation. The answer is simple: if you don't want to get shot, don't be a criminal.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Homeowner Merritt Landry, 33, who lives in Marigny, allegedly shot Marshall Coulter after fearing for his safety, and told friends and family he thought the teen had a gun. Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

Do you gun owners really think that is a justifiable reason for shooting somebody in the head who isn't actually threatening you at the point you are pulling the trigger?

If you face someone who jumped a security fence at 2 AM and is reaching in his waistband, you have reasonable expectation that you are in an immediate threat situation. The answer is simple: if you don't want to get shot, don't be a criminal.

Correct.
I just love these people that think a robber has to actually shoot you before you are justified in protecting your property, your family or your own life.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by macman

 

Are you aware that some of the best reformers of young criminals are old lags who have come through the other side of the errors of their ways as a better person, and hence, are able to instil a sense of respect into young offenders that a straight-necked person never could with any amount of bullying or harrassing?

Well, it's true, whether you are aware or not. As a result of my criminal experiences, I've been able to persuade many a nephew and cousin that their lifestyles were going to take them down a rocky road. Not all of them paid full heed and they learned the harder way, but some of them have learned from my mistakes.

I am very familiar with legal matters like that.
I also know that the programs you speak of, have a very low success rate.
And, we are not discussing reforming criminals. We are discussing the fact that a punk turd was set about breaking into property that was not his. He got shot and deservingly so.

You, a self admitted criminal, a foreign self admitted criminal really have no grounds to preach about American law.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

At what point does a child stop being a child and is then considered an adult? Is it due to age or the ability to reason? As you argue, that a 14 year old should not be considered such, yet what about the 13 year old who was a part of killing his father, is he not a child? Or the 10 year old who shot and killed his mother, do we consider him an adult?

There is a disturbing trend in the country where those under the age of consent, tend to be committing felonies. It is something that we need to look at and perhaps try to change the direction of.

The word itself "children" conveys a sense of innocent participation in an act with no sense of whats right and wrong. "Children" have a hard time knowing what right from wrong is.

They were young men. The difference is subtle yet very real. They were old enough to know that sometimes there are dire consequences for stealing from the wrong people.

People calling them children gives the feeling that they should be off the hook for their actions.

Everyone seems to think that parents can keep an eye on their teenagers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I guess alot of you had parents that were on prozac and speed all the time or something? My parents were always working when I was growing up. And that was 20 years ago. Its only gotten worse.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
I'd rather associate with someone who was a petty thief than someone who'd shoot a petty thief.

You ASSUME a 'petty thief'. When someone is breaking in, you have no idea if they are a 'petty thief' or a murdering rapist thief. I'd rather associate myself with people who have the common sense not to allow themselves to be victims rather than associate myself with the perps who illegally break into homes (and worse).

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The answer is simple: if you don't want to get shot, don't be a criminal.

there ya' go. Best post I've seen.

Someone doesn't want to get shot at ?? Then don't be a thief. Don't break into homes. Stay in school. Get a LEGAL job and/or get help via welfare/foodstamps and/or soup kitchens, etc. From the sound of it, this New Orleans thief was a 'professional thief' and wasn't trying to make a living in a legitimate manner. He was taking the easy way ... stealing what doesn't belong to him.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
I'd rather associate with someone who was a petty thief than someone who'd shoot a petty thief.

You ASSUME a 'petty thief'. When someone is breaking in, you have no idea if they are a 'petty thief' or a murdering rapist thief. I'd rather associate myself with people who have the common sense not to allow themselves to be victims rather than associate myself with the perps who illegally break into homes (and worse).

Yes, some posters think that a home owner should 'sit down to tea' with a would be robber and get their life story before they protect their property.
Bonkers.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

They're not holding their hands down their pants to pretend that they're "packing heat". It's a dominance, alpha, type gesture. They're holding their junk to intimidate other males and to attract females. They're trying to put some credence in the stereotype. I see it up here, too.

I, too, put the majority of the blame on the parents. Granted, you can't keep a teen couped up in the house. I was young once too and I'd often sneak out late at night. But the parents in this case, they need to be held accountable to some extent because this kid, as his brother put it, was a career criminal. Meaning, he's been around the block a few times.

I'm anxious to see what toxicology tests show, if any were preformed.

edit on 30-7-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

It does not really matter what the intent was. It's how the gesture is interpreted by people.

I've actually done the same thing to some black folks that were getting irate with the help at a Huddle house one night. As soon as they thought I might have a gun down the back of my pants, they backed off.

Yeah, I agree, if this kid was into stealing things then the parents should have at least had an inkling.

I don't know who the hell thinks grabbing their junk is intimidating.

If I see a guy doing that, I'm gonna think "Hmm, he looks like he's gotta pee."

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by KawRider9

 

Are criminals a separate species for which normal rules don't apply? Since when did the death penalty for attempted theft become acceptable?

If you want to think the worst of every criminal that is out there, dont be too surprised when you attract the worst of their kind to you and they treat you with the contempt you project at them.

edit on 29-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If a stranger is on my property late at night, then reaches for something when I confront them, I'm pretty sure they're not about to offer me a lollipop.
If you see someone creeping around outside your house, after scaling an 8 ft fence at 2:30 am, are you going to invite them in for coffee, then ask their intentions? Or will common sense tell you they're not there to tuck you in? The home owner had no way of knowing the intruder was unarmed. Even his own family admitted he was a "professional burglar". How is expecting the worst from a criminal, going to draw more? You better believe I treat them with contempt. They obviously have no respect for me, my family or my property, so why would I feel compassion for them? Yes, it's terrible that a kid is in a coma, likely with brain damage. But, let's put the blame where it should be. How about his parents taking charge if they knew this kid was doing the things he was? Maybe if parents started Parenting, instead of trying to be BFFs, the youth of today would be better off.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

But if you look back at the recent history, at those who were young, as young as age 6 on up to adulthood, do they not look like angles?

What makes this all the more difficult is that the perception is that children will do no wrong, and at the same time, it is when they commit a felony offense, that it becomes all the more shocking to the rest of the country.

And it leads to questions as to where were the parents. Yes some would say that teenagers are hard to control and that they can not be watched 24/7. Yet I find it ironic, these same teenagers, have some of the high tech gadgets and devices that they do, like cell phones, getting drunk, access and use of the internet and social media, it starts to paint a very different picture of the home life.

While it is true that many parents work out of the house and some single parent families the parent works 2 jobs to make ends meet and provide for their offspring, there has to be a point at which the parent knows something is up and that they need to step in. Is it the responsibility of the state to raise a child, no, it is the parents, at the same time, we can not continue to allow for these same children to run around like barbarians at the gate, in hopes that it is just a phase or that they will grow out of it. They had to learn from someone those bad habits, and ultimately, no one told that teenager to shoplift, or steal, or pick up a weapon and shoot someone.

In the piece that I posted, no one told that kid to go and hop a fence in the middle of the night. Perhaps the problem is not the teenagers, but society and the laws that govern how children are treated.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

What makes this all the more difficult is that the perception is that children will do no wrong, and at the same time, it is when they commit a felony offense, that it becomes all the more shocking to the rest of the country.

Something that does'nt help is the sense that parents always think their child can do no wrong. I totally agree.

"Not my baby."

"He could'nt do such a thing."

"It must have been someone else."

"insert choice of excuse here"

I know because I had a mom who thought I did no wrong when I was young. Man, if only she knew.