the Boo Hoo Media is warming up for this one.
Posted on 07/28/2013 4:43:12 AM PDT by kingattax
Merritt Landry, a 33-year-old “white caucasian” shot the victim, a 14-year-old black boy, in the head. A single spent cartridge case was recovered at the scene, indicating that a semi-automatic weapon was used and suggesting that a single shot was fired.
The hour of the shooting was approximately 2:00AM, on Friday, July 26, 2013. As of this writing the victim is reported to remain alive, in critical condition at a local hospital.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
It doesn’t matter if they’re trying to break into your home or not as far as I’m concerned. You can rightfully assume they are up to no good — especially at 2AM and they’ve had to climb over a fence to get onto your property.
By the way, Mr. Landry may be an even more appealing target for the forces of fascism, because he’s white without the Hispanic part AND it is EXACTLY this fact set that the Just Us Department and the “civil rights” mob wants to criminalize.
George Zimmerman’s case had to have substantial manipulation of the facts to turn it into a national “civil rights” issue. The Landry case will serve their purposes just as is.
Thanks
The only state that has an "up to no good" standard for deadly force is Texas - and that may just be a legend, for all I know.
snip
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. Police said the teen was near Landry’s vehicle when
he was shot about 2 a.m. Landry’s friends said the vehicle was in the driveway behind
a gate just a few feet from the house’s backdoor.
According to an NOPD arrest warrant, Landry shot Coulter from 30 feet away, evidenced
by the distance between the blood found on the ground and the single bullet casing
outside Landry’s house in the 700 block of Mandeville Street.
Landry told police that he approached the boy from his front yard, near his vehicle.
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.
End snip
I do not think the “victim” is the 14 year old “professional theif” as described by his family.
I think the “victim” is Mr. Landry, who is going to have the entire weight of the state put against him, to placate those who justify crime by young black men.
If a fenced-in backyard is considered part of the dwelling then this guy might have a defense. If not, then I say this guy is up $hit creek. Homeowner should have called 911 and got the police on the way and then waited to see if the kid attempted to make entry to the “dwelling” and then fired.
Any FR’s in that area ? Get the facts out and not allow the media to produce another circus of lies and fabrication which is leading to racial strife and the protection of government malfeasance. If there is additional information and your the one posting put it in the comment section. If all you know is what the source reads or says (tv news report ) solicit additional sourced information and discourage “remarks”.
“Except Mr. Landry, if reports are accurate, gave no warning,offered no challenge, or made his presence known before shooting. That would seem to invalidate his rights under the La. Law.”
From the article:
Hazouri reports that Landry, who has a baby daughter and whose wife is pregnant, believed that the victim was trying to break into his house. “All I know is that Merritt had told his family that he had said: ‘Freeze!’ and it looked like the guy turned at him and had his hand on his hip,” Hazouri reported.
You don't get it:
This is not about this kid -- anymore than the Zimmerman case was about TM.
The Z furor is an attempt to legalize the principle that blacks can beat up on whitey anytime, anywhere, and as viciously as they please -- if they are "dissed" in any way and whitey can't defend himself -- because slaveowners beat blacks...
Next step: no "dissing" required.
~~~~~~~~~~
This case is to negate trespass laws so that "minorities" can, with impunity, invade your private space and take whatever they want -- because "whitey owes it to "em"...
~~~~~~~~~~
There's nothing the lyingmedia. the "African 'culture'" and Øbozo/Holder want more than to implement these "just"(us) laws...
50 states, 50 laws. And Louisiana laws are not based on the same common law as the other 49, but rather on the Napoleonic Code.
We need an expert Louisiana FReeper to sort this out.
the Boo Hoo Media is warming up for this one.
“Mozambique drill...”
Who comes up with these concoctions? Now Robitussin will have to be purchased from the pharmacy and cost 3 times as much because of some brain cell challenged individual!
Having a plan practicing what one is going to say, the proper use of cover can lead to out come one can live with.
The local Time Pee Yuuuu is a dying Dem party rag that is published on,y 3 times a week now and soon to be dead.
Not too soon..it a Landrieu family pr outfit too .
I know this house and lived 2 blocks from it .
The house and large yard is beautiful but you can see everything thru the iron fencing. He needed to put up iron sheets over the iron rails to block the thugs that wander thru in bikes in the evening and then come back in the middle of the night.
This guy had been robbed earlier in the week and a large number of armed robberies
Happened up the street in the last few months .
It’s a beautiful place but borders an awful neighborhood.
The linked article, click link above & scroll down, explores the LA Statutes regarding possible charges in this event.
Now how it may play out in court is a different thing.
If it's good enough reason for police to defend themselves, then it's good enough for the rest of the citizenry.
I meant to add that this only applies if the “innocent little professional thief” dies. Otherwise, it is a moot point since the law seems to state you can use force in this situation as long as a homicide does not occur.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78335
RS 14 §18. Justification; general provisions
The fact that an offender’s conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offender’s conduct is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of public office; or
(2) When the offender’s conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure; or
(3) When for any reason the offender’s conduct is authorized by law; or
(4) When the offender’s conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by their parents, tutors or teachers; or
(5) When the crime consists of a failure to perform an affirmative duty and the failure to perform is caused by physical impossibility; or
(6) When any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed; or
(7) When the offender’s conduct is in defense of persons or of property under any of the circumstances described in Articles 19 through 22.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336
RS 14 §19. Use of force or violence in defense
A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.
B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.
Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338
RS 14 §20. Justifiable homicide
A. A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=814011
RS 14 §20.1. Investigation of death due to violence or suspicious circumstances when claim of self-defense is raised
Whenever a death results from violence or under suspicious circumstances and a claim of self-defense is raised, the appropriate law enforcement agency and coroner shall expeditiously conduct a full investigation of the death. All evidence of such investigation shall be preserved.
Acts 2012, No. 690, §1, eff. June 7, 2012.
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.