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.
LOL semantics but hold on to your image of angelic Trayvon if you like.
This is one intance where semantics DO make a difference.
Looking AT a horse is not the same as looking INTO a horse.
Looking AT a suitcase is not the same as looking INTO a suitcase.
Looking AT a woman is not the same as being a gynecologist.
There was no threat to the homeowner's life nor risk of bodily harm. The kid hadn't even tried to break in.
You can't shoot someone to death for being in your back yard. That's not stand-your-ground, that's slaughter.
So do I wait for them to charge at me or what?
When is it appropriate to feel threatened by someone who is deep into your property uninvited in the middle of the night?
Here is a simple effin' solution...stay off my property, period. No one gets hurt.
There are zero non-criminal reasons any stranger is in your backyard ever. Not sad about anyone who crosses this line and has to deal with consequences.
A nonviolent burglar how quaint. Now the inevitable comparisons to Trayvon. Ironically enough when Zimmerman forst called 911 he observed Trayvon looking into homes just like this little thief.
See if he did racially profile maybe the kid wouldn't be on life support. Profile people.
There is no evidence of a burglar here. The dog barked. The kid was leaving.
Even if a burglary had occurred, which it hadn't, I don't believe the appropriate penalty for burglary by a juvenile is the death penalty. Do you? You support the death penalty for juveniles who are found guilty of burglary without a weapon?
There is evidence of a murderer. I don't support murderers.
But.... the teen had a history of burglary arrests. So the teen was in the yard with the intent to steal from the house. And if someone was trying to break into my house to steal my valuables, I should be able to do something to that thief that would cause him to never try to burgle again. I'd want to be able to at least shoot him in the foot so that the police could catch and the DA prosecute him.
The problem here is that most burglaries end up with the thieves never getting caught and the homeowners' valuables never being recovered. So that is why so many homeowners want to stop the thieves before they get away. That Coulter teen was on a bad path to being an adult criminal.
Quote:
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.
There was no threat to the homeowner's life nor risk of bodily harm. The kid hadn't even tried to break in.
You can't shoot someone to death for being in your back yard. That's not stand-your-ground, that's slaughter.
He HAD already broken in. To the homeowner's FENCED yard. That fence is meant to keep people out. At 2am, if you are in MY fenced yard, you are up to no good. And I won't wait until you've attacked me to find out exactly what it is that you ARE up to.
Let's say he had burglary on his mind. You can't kill someone who is on your property because you think they have burglary on their mind. Plus, he wasn't armed. There were lots of ways to get rid of this potential burglar other than shooting him. The owner was safe in his house, and had nothing to fear from this kid. This is not stand your ground. Stand your ground means you have to have reasonable fear of IMMINENT serious bodily injury or death---not just potential but imminent.
I think the homeowner did just that. He didn't kill him. Just maimed him. Isn't that what all the bleeding hearts want the cops to do? Don't shoot to kill, just shoot to wound. Well, there you go.
This is absurd. If someone is breaking into your residence are you supposed to ask them ..."are you armed"? what a crock.
They are low lifes, breaking the law and taking a gamble that didn't pay off...too bad.... too bad the homeowner isn't a better shot. For me I would have turned my dogs on him and if he posed a threat to them, shot him. but I would not have missed.
People want to portray trevon as some innocent kid when he had made a store run for the ingredients for LEAN ... and home made drug. He was far from innocent as the press wants to lead people to believe. Both people made poor decisions, but when Trevon started the fight, he made a fatal choice.
There was no threat to the homeowner's life nor risk of bodily harm. The kid hadn't even tried to break in.
You can't shoot someone to death for being in your back yard. That's not stand-your-ground, that's slaughter.
This was yet another example of BAD parenting, just like with the Martins. Act like a punk or be a thief, then those bad life choices will eventually catch up to you. And maybe the punishment for burglary, should be the loss of a hand. And also for a teen with repeat burglary arrests.
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 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.
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.
