| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 07/27/2013 10:34:57 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 07/27/2013 9:03:05 AM PDT by Sharkfish
A 14-year-old boy remained in critical condition Friday after being shot in the head by a homeowner who said he thought the teen was trying to break into his house. But police said the teen was unarmed and did not pose an "imminent threat" when he was shot and have charged the owner with attempted second-degree murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
was the perpetrator black? Was the homeowner a white Hispanic?
If the boy is black and the homeowner not black, this could be another Trayvon Martin case. A key difference is that the boy was up to no good, whereas the liberal view of Trayvon Martin is that he was just minding his own business walking home. They can’t say that in this case. But the liberals and race baiters will say that even though the boy should not have been at this guy’s house, that it was excessive force.
Now, if the homeowner was black and the boy is black, then this story will disappear from the media. It will only stay alive if the boy is black and the homeowner is another race or ethnicity.
Was he drinking a bottle of iced tea flavored with Guaifenesin?
Familiar to what?
I think a key difference could be to the other side. Martin had jumped and was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. This kid, along with being three years younger didn’t show that he was an imminent threat from which the shooter couldn’t retreat.
Umm, professional thief here. 2am out in the yard of the homeowner. No way I’d convict.
“Familiar to what?”
The other thread on the subject?
14 years old?
2:00 AM?
Hey, mom, where are your parenting skills?
You left out the real possibility that the homeowner is a White Black man.
You know, someone with skin like the late Michael Jackson.
“did not pose an ‘imminent threat’ when he was shot”
Easy to say after the fact.
However, at the time the homeowner was defending hearth and home how was he supposed to know that the perp was unarmed and not an imminent threat? If someone’s trespassing upon one’s property they certainly don’t have your best interest at heart, and why does the homeowner have to second-guess himself in whether to use a gun in protecting home and family against a threat?
Sorry. Missed previous thread
Try a search.
“”He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure,” David Coulter said. “But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he’ll ever pick up a gun, he’ll be your friend first.”
I guess she had some parenting skills. Not many, but some.
If a trespasser is on the property at 2 am the homeowner as a matter of law should be entitled to assume he’s an imminent threat. Cops say that although the teen had a history of burglary arrests he never in the past used a gun. And the homeowner was supposed to know this?
“the teen’s history of burglary arrests “
and
his brother says: “He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure”
And for those who didn’t look at the pictures, your stereotypes are correct.
Of course the homeowner is guilty of racial profiling and premeditated murder...he lured the innocent young man into attempting to steal by dangling the rewards of hard work and honesty in his face... how could he be expected to resist...it’s like hunting doves at a bird feeder. (sarc)
The homeowner is guilty of not killing the punk and sticking a throw down, or at least a knife, in the punk’s hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.