Posted on 07/27/2013 7:54:27 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
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.
The family of Marshall Coulter said the teenager could move only the right side of his body a little, but not the left. Doctors told the family that if Coulter survives, he would likely be severely brain damaged.
Coulter's family acknowledged the teen's history of burglary arrests but said he had never used a gun.
Police said that Coulter did not pose a threat to the homeowner, Merritt Landry, who works as a building inspector for the Historic District Landmarks Commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
BINGO!
I agree. He was within the law but going outside would expose you to whatever awaits -- maybe there was an accomplice hiding by the door. The first objective is to protect the family inside. Going outside is a risky tactical move.
You call it "jumping the gun"; I call it assuming the worst. I you live in that cesspool of a city you know what must be done to survive.
2 AM, I am holding the fire arm and peeking through the window and calling the cops.
I believe in self defense.
And while I think this fellow was completely within his rights.
I think he could have been a bit more present of mind, but who am I to judge him?
It was 2 am and he was being robbed.
The bottom line is the bad guy who had no business on his property, stealing from him got shot.
Poor ol Tray Tray he would not hurt a fly.
Possibly, but it will be up to the judge to determine if his “pattern of behavior” prior to the event constitutes a reasonable assumption that his event behavior was a pattern he followed with his previous behavior.
The difference is that, until Martin attacked Zimmerman, he had not done anything illegal in *that* situation, just was behaving suspiciously. Therefore former acts could be excluded. However, this boy had broken at least two laws *as part* of what he was doing.
Typically, this would mean his former behavior could be used by the defense. But again, this is Louisiana, and their legal system can be very peculiar compared to that used by the rest of the US.
We have the mom taking up, making excuses, for the many time robber baby boy. The brother called him a “professional thief”. There is no mention of a father.
Here’s where it all went wrong: If I knew my son had robbed a place, I’d take him to the police station myself. He wouldn’t rob again because we would have had a talk, such as I’d tell him, I would make sure he went to prison if he did it again and I’d know why he did it to begin with. He would return what he stole and I’d know exactly where he was at all times and he wouldn’t be out at 2 am in the morning.
If he wanted to eat and have a roof over his head, he would be in school every day and do his homework.
If a kid keeps robbing, he knows he can do it and nothing lawful will happen to him. This time, the homeowner did something. I would bet no one climbs his fence again.
The only lesson here should be that YES you have the RIGHT to defend your life the lives of others and your Property, but....
And this is a BIG Butt (Michelle Obama are you listening?)
You will get flack.
Only you can decide if it is worth it
One thing the race baiters refuse to acknowledge is that Zimmerman called the Po Po first.
He had no desire to execute Trayvon or cover it up.
Some people say shoot shovel shut up, but I say establish a time line if you can
Justice can be a very fleeting thing. You really want “backup”
Jeez I broke my own rule.
Professional burglars don't carry guns because they know that if they're caught for burglary, they can plea bargain down to a few months in the county jail. Get caught with a firearm, and you face a weapons enhancement of 5 years.
But as you point out, the homeowner had no way of knowing if this was a "pro" or some strung-out junkie who would kill anybody he met.
The asking price determines the interest of the thieves. Put $200 on it and you can be rid of it in one night!
Blacks have been told they can do anything they want because most whites are going to be afraid to they’ll be charged with murder if they shoot them. Looks like they’re right.
People will say the man could have warned the kid that he had a gun. But why tell the perp where you are when you don’t know if the perp has a gun. Yell, “Stop or I’ll shoot!” and you just might get shot.
I wonder what the second kid did when he heard a gunshot? Is it on video?
Were I a legislature, I would push for a bill that made explicit that self-defense on one's property would be justified if either:
I dislike the extent to which judges prevent juries from hearing things about the decedent which might affect juries' evaluations of whether they would likely have been acting in such a fashion as to justify their getting shot. While such evidence would often be somewhat prejudicial, it may also have substantial probative value. I suspect the real reason it's excluded is that it would often lead jurors to believe, rightly, that various decedents belonged to a certain culture whose members would be apt to behave in ways that would justify their being shot.
Do not plea bargain.
The homeowner will be convicted, AND he will be sued for everything he owns by the thug’s family. So, in the end he gets robbed anyway-and the thug gets a t-shirt and local stardom in the hood.
Now, we have this case, and you say, “then it’s only reasonable to assume a thief is armed until proven otherwise.” What you say is right but that doesn't matter. Prosecutors will say, “This baby boy Marshall (think that is his name), didn't have a gun but the owner shot him anyway.”
The property owner is supposed to know, at 1-2 am, the baby boy is not armed with anything. Of course, baby boy still has fists and whatever item he can put his hands on to kill the owner. Maybe the owner isn't very strong, so wait until baby boy gets to him, then baby boy overpowers him and gets the gun and kills him.
The home owner is supposed to know the boy's age and the fact he is a thief but has not used a gun (if the brother is telling the truth). Therefore, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO STOP “SOME” OF THESE KILLINGS:
Start a website for baby boys who are thieves, robbers, rapists, druggies, have a gun/don't have a gun, wouldn't use a gun, would use a gun, and the baby boys list what their illegal specialties are. They list their favorite areas to do their illegal acts and the amount of body damage they do to people. Then, the homeowner can use the list to determine what measure of force to use when the baby boys come to their place. The baby boys should wear a big sign that gives their name to help the homeowner either kill them or hold them at bay until the cops get there.
For me, screw the list, if one tries to get in my house, I will assume he is armed and going to kill me and I'm shooting before he can do that. It's ridiculous to decide after the fact if someone should have shot or not. Did Marshall shout out - “I don't have a gun and you can trust me to tell you the truth.” No, he got in there to steal/rob and we don't know what else he would have done.
Yes I agree he was within the law to do what he did. But it presented more risk to him and his family to expose himself to the threat. If he had been taken out in the confrontation his whole family would have suddenly been vulnerable, presumably without a firearm in reserve.
I like your idea, but I suggest we use color-coded lights. Green means “no gun, no knife”. Yellow means “No gun, maybe knife”. Red means “Have gun, will use it”. Naturally, we will trust people to wear the appropriate color lights around their necks. Violators will be given scholarships to the college of their choice to help them with color recognition.
Only red lights suspects can be shot. Lights of other colors require the homeowner take his whoop-ass like a man.
Looking for a George Zimmerman in a blacker and crazier city...new Orleans fits the bill.
Poor Landry, that silly creepy ass cracka’ now knows what sitting on a powder keg means...
I'm in Texas. It would take a great deal of effort for someone to get into my small back garden. A motion alarm would go off as well as a strobe light. I would hear that. If someone touched my back door enough to vibrate it, a vibration alarm would go off. If that alarm goes off, my gun in my hand would be waiting. I would assume the motion alarm would send him on his way. The second alarm is his death knell and I mean it.
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.