Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know that this is as similar to the Trayvon Martin case as we think. I mean, whether Louisiana has a Stand-Your-Ground law or not, it doesn't apply to the situation.
I'm on the kid's side here. Here's why:
Okay, so you're in your living room and your dog starts barking. You go to the window and there's a kid in your yard, and you assume he's attempting to break in. So, to avoid being robbed you:
A) Freak out and shoot him in the cold blood
B) Tell him to beat it or you'll call the cops
C) Threaten so use force if he doesn't leave your property.
The murderer chose A. The right choice would be B or C, but let's start with B. You threaten to call the cops, and he still doesn't leave. You COULD call the police, but a lot could happen before they arrive, and you want this kid to beat it ASAP. So that's no good.
Let's try C. You get your gun, show it to the kid, and tell him "If you don't leave my property, I will use this gun to make you leave". Now, we know for a fact that the kid was unarmed, so if he even POSSESED a brain of any sort, he would have had the sense to leave immediately. The problem would have been solved just like that. But, no, the shooter chose A, and now the kid is near death in a hospital, only capable of moving one side of his body, potentially facing permanent brain damage IF he survives. It's sad, and yet it's infuriating because it could have easily been avoided.
The lesson to be learned in cases like and GZ/TM are "Don't attack people and you won't get shot" and "Don't break into people's houses and you won't get shot".
I work with a black kid who is also going to school as a criminal justice major. He goes to church every Sunday and attends choir practice every other Wednesday. You'd think that he was a good kid, however he lies to management all of the time and avoids his work duties every chance he gets like it's a skill to be proud of. He has no work ethic whatsoever. And I question his christian values. I really hate working with him. Anyway, I think that his parents s*ck at being parents.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're implying here. I'm hearing that you think:
Black parents "suck" at raising their children
Black people are lazy
Black people have no Christian values
That's just what I'm picking up here. I could be wrong, hell maybe I'm just retarded. You tell me.
Ah, BS, I know what you're saying. And I'm not offended because I'm black; in fact, I'm whiter than marshmallow fluff. I'm so white I got tan lines around my ankles from wearing socks all the time. No, I'm not offended because I'm black. I'm offended because racism is hateful, and I hate HATERS.
I thought G.Z was innocent of murder, but in this case I think the home owner was at fault and should be punished accordingly. As I read the article, he shot the kid in the head from 30 feet away.....
But I tell you who I think is to blame for all this in the end. The boys parents. Their kid was already in trouble with the law, with a history of arrests for burglary. They should have known that if their son continues down that path he will either get killed or land in prison. They could have prevented this by being better parents.
That is a good point, and it is true, Landry didn't know if the kid had a gun or not. So I have a counter-proposal: let's say Landry sees the kid, so he gets his firearm, and as he opens the door, he points the gun at the kid and has it on him continuously as he gives his warning to the intruder. That way, if the kid started reaching for his gun (assuming he had one), Landry could have THEN fired in self-defense, because the kid was armed and reaching for his weapon. In the real situation, though, the kid would have taken off because at the end of the day he did not have a gun.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder -- free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
There is evidence of a homicide - and it could be justifiable.
Let's explore the possible reasons why the kid could have been in the yard without having burglary on his mind.
Drunk - where is the evidence?
On drugs - where is the evidence?
Wrong address - where is the evidence?
He thought that it was a 7-11 and was looking for Ski...oh, never mind.
Why do you think that he was in the yard?
Apparently, according to LA law, it doesn't matter what the shooter thought, what matters is what the 14 yr old kid did, which was simple trespassing, for which it is against the law to use deadly force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
