The homeowner used the magic words:
> As he grew closer, he said, the boy made a “move, as if to
> reach for something” — possibly a weapon — so Landry
> shot him, the warrant states.
That, plus it being 2am, and on the shooter’s property, at 30 feet, is exculpatory. That the boy had a history of burglary arrests is just icing on the cake.
Aspects of the boy’s personality and background unknown to the shooter at the time do not matter at all.
1) He was on private property, so he was trespassing, and doing so by climbing over a fence.
2) He was doing so not just at night, but at 2am, which is a violation of New Orleans curfew for minors under the age of 16, which is 8pm, SIX HOURS earlier. So he didn’t just “miss curfew”, he was violating curfew.
3) By reaching for what the shooter believed was a weapon, or any fast, unexpected movement, is just asking to be shot, and it is a good idea for a shooter to shoot, because reacting can often be faster than acting. (As first asserted by physicist Neils Bohr a long time ago.)
The best advice to give to the shooter is at the inquest to assert that his state of mind was that he “felt he was at imminent lethal risk” from the burglar.
Unless the prosecutor and judge are hand picked to create a show trial, like the Zimmerman case, the decision for acquittal is a slam dunk. (Importantly, Louisiana law still has elements of Napoleonic law, which could create some twists and turns. But for the most part, the results should be the same.)
That the boy had a history of burglary arrests is just icing on the cake.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope. Just as the punk-ass thug history of Trayvone was not allowed in court, neither will the prior arrest record of this “professional theif” ever be mentioned.