New Orleans Man Arrested for Attempted Murder After Shooting Burglar

WWL-TVWWL-TVOn Friday a New Orleans homeowner was arrested for attempted second-degree murder after shooting a teenager who had climbed over his fence in the middle of the night. Merritt Landry, who works as a building inspector for the city's Historic District Landmarks Commission, said he believed Marshall Coulter, a 14-year-old with a history of burglary arrests, was about to break into his home. Awakened by his dog's barking, Landry went outside to see what was going on and saw Coulter in his driveway a few feet from his back door. Landry said that as he approached Coulter the teenager made a "move, as if to reach for something." Landry said he fired at that point, fearing that Coulter had a weapon. But police said Coulter, who was struck in the head and critically wounded, was unarmed and did not pose the sort of "imminent threat" that would justify the use of deadly force. Based on where they found blood and a shell casing, they estimated that Landry shot Coulter from a distance of about 30 feet.

Neighbors told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that Landry, who has a pregnant wife and a baby daughter, was merely trying to protect his family. Coulter's 23-year-old brother, David Coulter, admitted that Marshall had a history of "stealing stuff," calling him a "professional thief." But he said Marshall "would never pick up a gun, not in a million years." He added:

He's still a little boy. Who pulls a trigger on a 14-year-old? What if it was your little brother or your sister? How would you feel?

Landry, of course, was in no position to know Marshall Coulter's age, criminal history, or attitude toward firearms. And under Louisiana law, it seems he was within his rights to shoot the intruder. The Louisiana statute governing the "use of force or violence in defense" says "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 "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" and "the person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred." A homicide likewise is considered justified "when committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle...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."

So why was Landry arrested? Det. Nicholas Williams asserted in the arrest warrant that Coulter was not trying to enter Landry's house when he was shot. But this "professional thief" had hopped Landry's fence at 2 a.m. and was a few feet from the back door. If he had closed that distance and put his hand on the door knob before being shot, would that have made Landry's use of force justified?

Louisiana, by the way, has a "stand your ground" law, adopted in 2006, and at least one change made that year is relevant in this case. The main change, as in Florida, was a provision stating that "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 [when justified by a reasonable fear of death or serious injury] and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force." But even prior to 2006, the Times-Picayune notes, people facing intruders at home had no duty to retreat and were authorized to use force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believed it was necessary to "prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises." The 2006 law, also as in Florida, strengthened the right to self-defense in the home by creating a presumption that the use of force is reasonable in that setting.

[Thanks to David Kervin for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obviously I can't knee-jerk this case without the race of everyone involved.

  • Rich||

    I'll give you a hint, Fist: "Here we go again."

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's an epidemic. We must declare Marshall law and start rounding up all white males that did not vote for Obama.

  • Dweebston||

    Pretty sure Zimmerman voted Big-O, at least in 2008. White men can't be trusted whatever their political preferences.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dammit, we're going to need more trains.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Please excuse my hijack to pass along the Legal Insurrection post which has more detail and pictures:
    here

  • Duke||

    The h/t was mine. I live in Chocolate City and the Marigny is a very dangerous place (as is all of New Orleans, frankly). There have been many rapes, muggings, murders, car jackings and burglaries in that neighborhood (as well as mine in the Irish Channel). Also some cool jazz clubs there too but I digress...

    I’m therefore in 100% agreement with the homeower. He had every reason to be in fear of his life based on the circumstances; an intruder scaled a fairly formidable fence to get close to his back door and his neighborhood was rife with home invasions -- hence the security fence. Was Landry supposed to wait until the intruder beat him and then put his penis in his wife before he could shoot him? BTW, there was a home invasion in this same neighborhood on the same night.

    The comments on the T-P article are overwhelmingly in support of Landry. New Orleans has been one of the most dangerous cities in America for decades. It’s therefore outrageous that the NOPD and DA’s office is charging this poor man with any crime at all when he was clearly frightened and trying to protect his family and property.

  • Ashlyn||

    Happened just a couple blocks from Mimi's, right? The neighborhood's history certainly makes me more sympathetic to the homeowner.

    Tragic all around - for the Landrys and for the Coulters.

  • Lyle||

    Not much of tragedy for the Coulters. They recognize themselves their kid was a thief. They knew exactly what could happen.

  • Ashlyn||

    You're saying he deserved to die and his own family shouldn't mourn him?

    The kid is responsible for creating the situation that led to his death. But he wasn't a soulless monster. He was a fourteen year old from a dangerous neighborhood and a shit school district.

    Hell, even if he were a soulless monster, it would still be tragic for his family.

  • Rrabbit||

    Landry was arrested because he is not a cop. While a cop would be feeling threatened in such a situation, ordinary citizens are expected to be tougher than that.

  • Copernicus||

    I hope this case gets serious coverage because his justification for the shooting sounds like every cop's justification in which the cop is ultimately judged to have "followed procedures".

  • Warrren||

    Reached for something in his waistband? What the hell kind of defense is that? I mean who would ever think that would work?

  • Anonymous Coward||

  • Warrren||

    So he was arrested for copyright infringement?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Failure to properly use FORCE CONTIUUMS or take into account the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCS.

  • PH2050||

    PC, procedures were followed, good shoot.

  • Rrabbit||

    From the linked article:
    A spokesman for the City of New Orleans said Landry has been placed on emergency suspension without pay.
    Oh, so government employees can be suspended without pay during such an investigation. Who would have thought that?

  • A Serious Man||

    He's not a member of the police guild. There is a hierarchy, you know.

  • Andrew S.||

    Of course, since there's no double standard, an officer certainly would have been arrested for 2nd degree murder in the same situation, right?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Landry said that as he approached Coulter the teenager made a "move, as if to reach for something." Landry said he fired at that point, fearing that Coulter had a weapon. But police said Coulter, who was struck in the head and critically wounded, was unarmed and did not pose the sort of "imminent threat" that would justify the use of deadly force.

    Huh.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I'm just so hoping it'll be a black kid and a white shooter and we can do this all over again.

  • ||

    Um...

    ...that's white hispanic.

  • Nazdrakke||

    ...that's white hispanic

    MSNBC, the highest racial grievance authority in the land, has assured me that Peru is not, for purposes of hate-mongering, actually hispanic.

  • Fatty Bolger||

  • C. Anacreon||

    Speaking of which, Representative Barbara Lee (D-Oakland/Berkeley), who is probably the farthest left of anyone in Congress, wrote an op-ed today that says that all the problems of young black men in America are due to not enough government programs.

  • PH2050||

    That's funny, I thought a lot of it had to do with this one really giant government program called the War On Drugs.

  • PapayaSF||

    Since the perp was 14, get ready for a bunch of pictures from his family showing him at age 10.

  • A Serious Man||

    So why was Landry arrested? Det. Nicholas Williams asserted in the arrest warrant that Coulter was not trying to enter Landry's house when he was shot. But this "professional thief" had climbed Landry's fence at 2 a.m. and was a few feet from the back door. If he had closed that distance and put his hand on the door knob before being shot, would that have made Landry's use of force justified?

    Is there no Castle Doctrine in Louisiana?

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Possibly irrelevant, as the kid was outside the house at the time. One theory is that he was just taking a shortcut home. Another is that he was only going to break in to the car parked outside. But he was not inside the house and was not (yet) trying to break in.

  • Irish||

    This is tough. On the one hand, the kid was on his property and could have posed a threat. On the other hand 'I thought he moved like maybe he had a weapon' doesn't strike me as proper cause to shoot somebody.

    The double standard pisses me off since a cop that used that excuse would immediately be exonerated, but I'd need to know more about what actually happened before I made up my mind on the case.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Fuck 'the kid'.

    Landry just saved thousands of people from being victimized.

  • Andrew S.||

    Which is not a reason for summary execution. His fear for his life is.

    Since I've been told that for police officers, a claim that "he was reaching for his waistband" is justification, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Ha ha ha ha. Don't you that the Warrior Caste cannot be held to the same standard as the Peasant Caste?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Agreed.

    I'm just sick of morons sympathizing with criminals. It is possible to oppose abuses of police power without sympathizing with / excusing / justifying real criminals.

    And I would 'fear my for my life or great injury' from anyone that was breaking into my house at 2am. Because only violent and stupid people do such.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm just sick of morons sympathizing with criminals. It is possible to oppose abuses of police power without sympathizing with / excusing / justifying real criminals.

    They are not opposing forces, they are in cahoots, so to hate both classes of individuals is only logical.

  • Irish||

    Landry just saved thousands of people from being victimized.

    You can see into the future and know for a fact that 'thousands of people' would have been robbed by this kid? That's so cool!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, it's better to shove my head up my ass, and pretend that a thug who is described as a "career criminal" at 14 will see the error of his ways because it fits my liberal world view. And anyway it was obviously society's fault that he was forced into criminal activity.

    Derp.

  • A Serious Man||

    Don't be a jackass. At 14 it is possible for someone to be reformed with the right guidance and motivation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sure it's possible. Just unlikely as hell.

  • A Serious Man||

    Still no reason to rejoice at a 14 year old's death. I hope he survives and this incident convinces him that burglary is not a good idea.

  • Harvard||

    More likely he survives, continues to burglarize, but when caught refrains from the waistband move.

  • SIV||

    Proper shot placement will ensure no one disputes he went for his waistband.

  • Nooge.||

    Always double-tap.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Damn, Irish, didn't the Zimmerman case teach you anything? The circumstances of the shooting are totally irrelevant. What matters is what the races and ages of the individuals are.

  • Rrabbit||

    The kid, at age 14, has a history of burglaries. We can be confident that the kid intended to break into the house.
    That's sufficient for me.

  • Rrabbit||

    Or possibly the car.

  • sgs||

    " 'I thought he moved like maybe he had a weapon' doesn't strike me as proper cause to shoot somebody.:

    How about in the dark at night after he trespassed over your fence onto your property?

    Because none of that is in dispute, and I'd kill him.

  • Irish||

    OT: AP has fucking stupid story about poverty in America.

    Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

    If you count anyone who has struggled with joblessness at any point in their life, and use a totally nebulous term like 'near poverty' it's amazing how many pretty wealthy people magically become poor.

  • Fluffy||

    I saw that and commented along those lines.

    I know people who had a 7 figure income one year and a $0 AGI the next year. Heck, just about everybody who was anybody in the mortgage industry had that happen MORE THAN ONCE between 1990 and 2009.

    And all of those people struggle with near-poverty, by the definition used in that article.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, I'm a business owner who's income was negative for several years of Obama's depression so now I'm near-poverty.

    Does that mean I can get free shit from Uncle Obama, despite my net worth and current income?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    He's still a little boy. Who pulls a trigger on a 14-year-old? What if it was your little brother or your sister? How would you feel?

    OMG! Don't you have any FEELS? FEELS is all that matters! Guilt or innocence should be determined by how much FEELS you FEEL.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    My favorite meme from lefties wrt the zimmerman affair is that HE HAD A LOADED GUN - which is some talisman of evil that possesses anyone who touches it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Of course. Guns are anathema. They corrupt the minds of all who wield them. All who use guns are tainted and turned to the Dark Side.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Except for those blessed by the state.

  • fish_remote||

    While roughly synonymous I've always felt that sanctified was far more powerful when referring to government firearms.

  • Fluffy||

    Was the kid "forcibly entering a dwelling" at the time he was shot?

    It sounds like he was shot in the driveway.

    I'm all for burglar target practice, but I think you need a little more than the kid just standing in the driveway. Even if there's a fence.

  • Xenocles||

    By your logic all those guys were just standing around the pinball table in "The Accused."

  • np||

    The burglar (who also had a history of burglary) climbed Landry's fence at 2 a.m. and was a few feet from the back door and from the statement, sounds like he didn't immediately scram when approached (the movements as if to reach for something)

    So it seems justified and also within state law on the matter.

    It's not like he just walked onto an open yard from the sidewalk.

  • Rrabbit||

    Landry went out there because his dog had alerted him to the intruder. That leaves the burglar with at least a few seconds he could have used to climb back over the fence. Obviously he didn't do that.

  • Fluffy||

    Right, but the law doesn't say "tract of property".

    It says "dwelling, place of business or vehicle".

    "Dwelling" to me means inside your house.

    Climbing the fence makes the kid a trespasser. So that would seem to make the shooting a no-warning shooting of a trespasser. Even when I'm arguing the merits of violence against trespassers with Tulpa, I always assume the trespasser gets a warning.

  • Dweebston||

    If the shooter can be believed, he fired because he suspected the intruder was reaching for a weapon–not because he was trespassing.

  • Rrabbit||

    As long as the burglar does not die,
    Louisiana Revised Statutes, title 14, paragraph 19 will apply. The quote in the article is from part B. Part A of LRS 14:19 even applies to trespass:
    "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 ..."

    "preventing a forcible offense against the person" would also apply provided that Landry's account of the incident is true.

  • JohnTheRevelator||

    And the post-Zimmerman CYA arrests (and prosecutions?) begin.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Det. Nicholas Williams asserted in the arrest warrant that Coulter was not trying to enter Landry's house

    Police Psychic Squad, GO!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He obviously jumped the fence to retrieve a lost ball.

    Derp

  • lap83||

    No. It was to heroically steal the guy's gun.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    His Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail over the fence and was just picking them up.

  • AlmightyJB||

    +3 internets

  • Rich||

    A midnight basketball, perhaps?

  • Lyle||

    He just wanted to bounce in the man's yard a bit and then would hop back other.

  • A Serious Man||

    I'm going to have to side with the homeowner on this one. It's 2am, the guy had been sleeping and was startled by his dogs barking, he goes out to investigate and all he can see is a shadowy figure approaching his home after hopping the fence.

    I'd be scared to if I saw him reaching for something. Now if the kid had bolted for the fence and he shot him, then I'd be inclined to think it unjustified. Hopefully the kid pulls through and they drop the charges, although there are probably some attorneys out there that would have it him in a civil suit for the shooting.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It seems to me the question is, where do you put the presumption here? Do you presume that a person who finds someone hopping his fence onto his curtilage in the nighttime has good reason to fear serious bodily harm or a forcible crime is fairly imminent, or do you presume that that threshold has not been crossed yet? I think you have to bet on the former, because that gentleman has not initiated any wrong, we can't guess what 'would have happened' from that point, and even if we could can we expect that of this gentleman at the time?

    I would probably feel differently if it were daytime and there was no fence having been hopped.

  • Xenocles||

    If you violate property in as brazen a manner as breaching a physical barrier and you do not retreat or surrender when challenged, you have demonstrated your intent to harm as explicitly as needed as far as I'm concerned.

  • Fluffy||

    Where do you see anything about a challenge?

    The homeowner doesn't claim to have challenged the guy at all.

    That's the crux of the issue here to me.

    Until he actually tries to break into the house, he's a trespasser, not a burglar.

    So we have the shooting of a trespasser when the trespasser was not challenged or warned to vacate.

    That's a bit out there on the bleeding edge, dude.

    I claim absolute private property right on my real property, up to and including the right to push you off it into a flood or lava flow where you'll certainly die (thank you, Tulpa thought experiment) but shooting a trespasser without warning is extreme even for me.

  • A Serious Man||

    Until he actually tries to break into the house, he's a trespasser, not a burglar.

    So we have the shooting of a trespasser when the trespasser was not challenged or warned to vacate.

    But did the trespasser see Landry approaching him? Landry may not have had time to identify himself before Coulter made the alleged reach into his waist.

    If you are trespassing on private property it is reasonable for you to assume that any person you encounter on the property has a lawful right to be there and to defend that property.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If there were no hopping of the fence and this were night nighttime I might agree with you. The first solidifies to me the young man intends more than a mere trespass, the second makes the situation fraught with danger for the homeowner.

    Why require a warning from the one who is not initiating any wrong doing and who can form a reasonable belief that this man means him serious harm? A warning might give the intruder the chance to 'try something.' I for one can't second guess the situation to say 'well, a warning would do no harm to the homeowner here.'

  • RBS||

    Yeah, I was looking at the pictures with the article and the fenced in portion of the house appears to be pretty small. So small the when someone hops the fence they are basically at your front door. My back porch is like that and if someone hops it in the middle of the night they will probably get shot.

  • Killazontherun||

    A warning might give the intruder the chance to 'try something.' I for one can't second guess the situation to say 'well, a warning would do no harm to the homeowner here.'

    This. A warning would have been a waste of precious seconds that would further endanger you.

  • robc||

    If the dog bark was loud enough, does that qualify as a warning to the trespasser?

  • RBS||

    Fluffy,

    Maybe he did warn him.

  • Irish||

    Okay, looking at the fence the kid had to get through I think I've changed my mind. The kid had to jump a fence with spikes on the top of it in order to even make it into the drive way. It seems to me that the very existence of that sort of fence should be enough to tell a burglar 'do not attempt to rob this property.'

    Attempted second degree murder also seems a ridiculous charge in this case. Read what you need to prove this:

    The last path involves the offender with a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. Although such intent can form quickly, and Louisiana’s second degree murder charge does not incorporate the element of a “depraved murder” as is the case in Florida, it seems clear that Landry’s only use of force was in a perceived need to act in self-defense.

    Landry believed he was acting in self-defense, so it doesn't seem that this could possibly apply. I think that a lesser charge could stick, but attempted 2nd degree murder is an overcharge.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Thats ok, they can charge him wit attempted genocide and destruction of the universe now, and then later on change the charges to jay walking after the defense has rested. I think thats what the lawyers and magistrates call "due process", right?

  • ||

    Yah, sounds like a "plea to manslaughter" ploy to me.

  • Xenocles||

    "Where do you see anything about a challenge?

    The homeowner doesn't claim to have challenged the guy at all."

    "Landry said that as he approached Coulter the teenager made a "move, as if to reach for something.""

  • Xenocles||

    So at worst, he never had the chance to issue his challenge before he perceived an explicit threat. But even the implicit threat given the circumstances was probably enough to satisfy me.

  • Rrabbit||

    Landry claims that he had said "Freeze".

  • ||

    Where do you see anything about a challenge?

    He said "freeze."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I will add that I think the young man's age to be irrelevant. 14 year olds have been known to hurt people and to appear to be older, especially at 2 am from a distance of 30 feet. I also think the young man's criminal record is beside the point-the homeowner could not have known that at the time, he's free, and reasonable, to draw his conclusions of likely danger from what he does know (the time of night, the type of entry onto the curtilage). If he had no record would it have been any different for him standing there at 2 am? No.

  • RBS||

    You never know, the home could have known about the kids criminal history. Everyone always knew who the punks were in my neighborhood growing up.

  • RBS||

    * Homeowner.

  • Juice||

    And just a hop down I-10 in Baton Rouge, cops are arresting gays under obsolete sodomy laws.

    http://theadvocate.com/home/65.....e-arrested

  • np||

    Those arrested should have stood their ground to the cops

  • SugarFree||

    Thirty foot head shot in the dark after just waking up? Damn, dude.

    There aren't a lot of legitimate reasons to jump a fence at 2am, and even his brother admitted he was a thief. Sometimes you roll the dice and come up snake eyes.

    And, of course, this is the NOPD. They might have charged him because he wouldn't bribe them a proper amount.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'd take the "30 feet" with a grain of salt. The shell casing would have landed a ways away from the gun and could have rolled even further away. The burglar could also have fallen backward, adding 5-6 feet to the apparent distance.

    The neighborhood seems to have a history of burglary, armed robbery, and even home invasions.

  • SugarFree||

    I was admiring his marksmanship.

  • Harvard||

    Two words. Laser sight.

  • PapayaSF||

    I know you were, I was just saying that "30 feet" might be an exaggeration.

    Also, aren't you supposed to go for the center of mass? Head shots are tougher.

  • Lyle||

    NOLA needs more shootings like these. Hoodlumdum needs to go the way of the Dodo bird.

  • Killazontherun||

    And it is in the interests of NOPD, prosecutors, and other municipal bodies to make sure that that never happens. Fucking vigilantes will ruin a good set up.

  • Lyle||

    Excellent point.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If the Zimmerman case has taught us anything, it is that a jury cannot be trusted to settle this.

  • Warrren||

    Jsut roll that beautiful shot in the bean footage!

  • Juice||

    Also OT: Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Health-Care Benefits to Employees

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....na-johnson

    Oh, the delicious irony.

  • Jordan||

  • Nazdrakke||

    Marshall Coulter, a 14-year-old with a history of burglary arrests

    The elephant in the yard here.

    So CPS can take away your kids if you smoke the Devil's Weed (which is such a terrible scourge that it's even been legalised in some states) but committing multiple felonies by 14 leaves you free to, dunno, get lost and forget which house is yours at 2am?

    I'm not big into the criminal justice system to say the least, but unless this kid was so precocious that he had committed his crimes at like 12 and was out after serving his time why in the world was he not in some kind of controlled or at least supervised setting?

  • Irish||

    Because teenagers with a history of property crime need to be left free on the streets so that they can form flash mobs, organize smash and grabs on twitter, and kill elderly Asian men while playing the knockout game.

    Don't you know anything?

  • Nazdrakke||

    Don't you know anything?

    I guess I've just been looking at the issue all wrong. All that theft and property crime really helps to stimulate the economy. All that stolen property has to be replaced and if we're really lucky the kids will break a lock or a window in the process. Moar Jerbz!

  • RBS||

    Won't you think of the pawn shops!?

  • brec||

    The quoted statute applies to persons "inside a dwelling" and thus would not seem to support Jacob's interrogative conclusion from it, "So why was Landry arrested?"

  • mr lizard||

    This is the exact reason SYG was written. This purpose was to allow people to protect themselves without getting put through the legal wringer. I hope he gets a SYG hearing like they have in Florida. There is no contest on this one, 2am on the property, you're done idk about anything.

  • SIV||

    Based on Sullum's citation of LA law the owner didn,t even need tp be in fear for his life.

  • RBS||

    From the comments to the article:

    Every depraved,degenerate,despicable,atrocious act committed by African Americans can be attributed to learned behavior,they learned it from their SLAVE MASTERS when they were separated from family, stolen,sold like cattle and brought to this country against their will. If that's not an atrocity to impose on a RACE of HUMAN BEINGS I don't know what else to define it as. I know we are supposed to forget about this dispensation of time,but, it happened ITS HISTORY. It's time to stop the HATE and the only way we can accomplish this is to follow the teachings of CHRIST. JESUS SAID:VERILY,VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU,YOU MUST BE YOU'VE GOT TO BE BORN AGAIN!!! GOD SAID IT,I BELIEVE IT,AND THAT SETTLES IT!!! Atheist and agnostic this is beyond your comprehension. My prayer is that the LORD shines some light into your dark souls while the blood is still warm in your veins. BROTHERS AND SISTERS in CHRIST and CREATION we are ONE RACE the HUMAN RACE !!! Know JESUS Know LOVE, No JESUS No LOVE. For GOD IS LOVE
  • Warrren||

    Well I'm convinced of something!

  • Generic Stranger||

    That mental wards allow their patients access to computers?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Actually, yes. Access to computers on psychiatric wards is presently considered a cutting-edge way to help keep patients relaxed and reduce stress/anxiety.

  • Matthew Brown||

    That explains SO MUCH about the Internet.

  • Dweebston||

    But access to computers correlates with exposure to Warty. I fail to see how this risk to the mentally infirm can be tolerated.

  • Irish||

    Every depraved,degenerate,despicable,atrocious act committed by African Americans can be attributed to learned behavior,they learned it from their SLAVE MASTERS

    There was no violence on the African continent until the white man came.

  • SugarFree||

    And slave traders were all atheists.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And white.

  • Dweebston||

    NO VIOLENCE NO WHITES.

  • Killazontherun||

    Growing up as a working class kid in the Philadelphia of the 1950s, Bill Cosby was not an outlier as he seems to a lot of people today. He was just a typical black kid of his era when blacks had lower crime rates and lower unemployment rates than whites and they produced an obscene amount of first class cultural product in the arts. He was also many generations closer to the actual slave era than this fourteen year old punk. So, nothing that guy above writes actually makes sense. The degeneration began with the Great Society, and it did exactly as its architects intended, created dependency and it got Democrat politicians votes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So we have the shooting of a trespasser when the trespasser was not challenged or warned to vacate.

    Here's where the force continuum comes into play. The guy should have whacked him with a baseball bat a few times, and then shot him. Like a cop would do.

  • Harvard||

    This is what happens when you deny the populace the use of land mines to protect their property.

  • Jordan||

    10 crazy red-light camera cases

    A few happy endings in here, like San Bernadino being driven into bankruptcy and Tacoma getting fucked over for charging a guy $670 to exercise his 6th Amendment rights.

  • GPZsug||

    Fuck this "imminent" threat bullshit. The threat is what justifies violence, not the imminence.

  • Juice||

    The drone program agrees.

  • Lyle||

    That's why we do it.

  • GPZsug||

    The drone program agrees.

    The drone program raises serious ethical issues that have nothing to do with the imminence of threat. You want to string up the administration over drones? Be my guest. But if you want to do it over the matter of imminence then I have a bone to pick with you.

  • Agammamon||

    So, what? You're saying its perfectly allright for the government to be able to kill anyone, anywhere for little provocation but its using *drones* you have a problem with?

  • GPZsug||

    You're saying its perfectly allright for the government to be able to kill anyone

    No. I wrote that the ethical issues are unrelated to *imminence*. The problems with the drone program include

    1. The administration's trustworthiness in evaluating threats.
    2. Collateral damage.
    3. Due process.

    If the administration credibly establishes threat, avoids collateral damage and conducts due process then there is nothing unethical about a drone strike.

    Non-imminent threats could be better handled. But that's simply because, as a practical matter it's a good idea to hold the government (a powerful entity with a penchant for abusing that power) to a higher standard than individuals. It's not an ethical issue.

  • MasterDarque||

    This charge is appropriate - had Landry stayed in his home and then the guy entered or tried to enter then I could see usually deadly force - simply being in the yard does not cut it for me

  • GPZsug||

    Whether it cuts it for you is irrelevant. Landry purports to have felt threatened, and there's no reason to disbelieve him.

    You're welcome to bring societal pressure to bear upon him. You're not welcome to advocate violence (i.e. arrest and imprisonment).

  • np||

    He jumped a barbed wire fence at 2 am, and was a few feet away from the door, didn't run away from the dogs, nor when Landry approach. What else do you need? It's pretty irrational at that point to assume that the trespasser was no threat.

  • Redmanfms||

    What a completely unsurprising position for you to take.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    He should have just stayed inside, and wrapped himself in bubble wrap, and hidden in a closet. Might as well leave some milk and cookies out too.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If the homeowner had remained inside and shot the kid after he had broken in, people would accuse him of "bushwhacking" the kid.

  • andarm16||

    Since Landry is most likely Cajun, does he get any oppression points? I mean, his ancestors were forcibly removed from their homes and all.

  • Xenocles||

    Yes, that entitles you to the same consideration as the descendants of an Irishman or a Pole.

  • andarm16||

    So that makes him a creepy ass cracker with a history of white privilege?

  • Xenocles||

    Precisely!

  • Juice||

    Where do you get that he's "most likely" Cajun? If he lives in New Orleans, he's most likely not.

  • Duke||

    “Landry” is a very prominent cajun name.

  • SIV||

    Or Creole. He ain't cajun if his ancestors didn't spend some time in Nova Scotia or New Brunwick.

  • Swiss Servator - past LTC(ret)||

    Ahem...Arcadia.

  • Duke||

    Huh? Creole is African-Carribean-American. Those folks live in New Orleans. And Creole food is way different than Cajun food. If you go to Lafayette, where the heart of Acadiana lies, you’ll see that everyone’s last name is either Broussard or Landry. And I mean everyone.

  • Hyperion||

    You don't have any right to defend yourself, unless you are one of the elite political class, or their defenders(cops).

    The rest of us are 'biological resources', not real people with rights.

    There are 300 million of us serfs. We could put a stop to the political elite class at any moment that we want to, and there would be nothing they could do to stop it. This is why they have become so paranoid and have went completely ape shit on trying to divide people by race, class, sex, whatever.

    I'm expecting Rand Paul or Justin Amash to have an 'unfortunate accident' in the near future.

  • Timon 19||

    Forgive the off-topicness, but:

    ¡Campeones!
    ¡Campeones!
    ¡Olé, olé, olé!

  • Hyperion||

    Mexican football?

  • Timon 19||

    'Murican.

    Gold Cup Champions.

  • Xenocles||

    Gold Cup ain't American Football.

  • Timon 19||

    It's American football if the US is playing. Football played by Americans.

    Tournament won by Americans. American footballers win football tournament.

  • RBS||

    Still not american football.

  • Timon 19||

    Yeah it is. It's not American Football, but it's American football.

    Come on, let me gloat. Our national team just won a trophy with a B-team, and they did it in style. It's been a fun tournament to watch and even if you don't give a shit about soccer, you should at least give credit where it's due.

  • Hyperion||

    Who were they playing, the Brazilian pee-wee soccer league?

  • Timon 19||

    The team that took down Mexico twice in the same tournament: Panama.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Since EVH doesn't appear to be on, I'll fill in the appropriate response to your post about Panama.

  • Timon 19||

    I played that right after they beat Mexico. I enjoyed that.

  • SugarFree||

    I think he's talking about soccer. Or maybe hockey.

  • Xenocles||

    I know, just breaking some balls here.

  • SugarFree||

    It also might be curling.

  • Killazontherun||

    That game they teach to poor kids in third world countries because its simple enough for even someone who has not had a meal in three days to understand? They have professional leagues for that?

  • Timon 19||

    Next will be the Communist bit.

    Don't care. Trophy.

  • Hyperion||

    When they make some type of respectable ranking in the World Cup, then I'll take note. I was surprised how many Murikans were watching last world cup.

  • Timon 19||

    Quarterfinals weren't enough, outplaying Germany on the way? (I'll leave off the semifinals in 1930)

    Considering only 9 countries have ever won, I'm not sure what "respectable" means, particularly given that the US has only really taken it seriously since we won the bid for 1994. Most of the world has between 50 and 100 years on us.

    Anyway, you guys suck. Winning a trophy is never bad.

  • RBS||

    Winning a trophy is never bad.

    Bad? No. Meaningless? Yes.

  • Timon 19||

    They get a chance to play in the 2017 Confederations Cup, which is a big payday just to get there. Not meaningless.

    Also, got to develop depth in the squad, which can only help.

    AND we get to laugh at Mexico and their inability to even make the final.

    What's not to like?

  • Xenocles||

    "What's not to like?"

    Soccer.

  • Ted S.||

    They get a chance to play in the 2017 Confederations Cup, which is a big payday just to get there. Not meaningless.

    I thought that went to the winner of the next Gold Cup in 2015. (It is still on a two-year rotation, right?)

  • Timon 19||

    Ted, they changed it, yet again.

    Winner of 2013 GC plays winner of 2015 GC in a playoff (one or two legs, I don't know). If the winners are the same, there is no playoff.

  • Ted S.||

    CONCACAF is really wonky with its tournament structure.

  • Timon 19||

    Remember, Jack Warner was the head of CONCACAF for approximately forever until he was finally brought down on major corruption charges.

    Any organization with that douche in charge is prone to such arbitrary decisions.

  • Ted S.||

    What bigwig in FIFA or the confederations isn't corrupt?

  • Timon 19||

    For sheer number of blatant incidents, no one except maybe bin Hammam could hold a candle to Jack.

  • RBS||

    Don't care. Trophy.

    Pretty much sums it up.

  • SugarFree||

    But they have calves the size of cantaloupes! Oh, wait... you weren't talking about marijuana smuggling, Killaz.

  • Killazontherun||

    Like I said before, I have no use for Valedictorian immigrants, they will not carry my hunting trophies, or polish my monocles. But poor immigrants, I can't get enough of them.

  • Killazontherun||

    Where is Valedictoria anyway? And why are they so uppity?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Considering only 9 countries have ever won, I'm not sure what "respectable" means, particularly given that the US has only really taken it seriously since we won the bid for 1994. Most of the world has between 50 and 100 years on us.

    Unless it's a different gold cup, it seems only three countries have ever won: Mexico (6 wins), the United States (5 wins), and Canada (1 win).

    Not seeing the big deal. We seem to take the title fairly often, and it's a very regional competition.

  • Ted S.||

    In theory, it should be as big a deal as any of the other continental championships.

    In practice, over the last 20 years or so, the North/Central Aermcian/Caribbean region has been USA and Mexico, with the other 30 or so members lagging fairly far behind.

  • Timon 19||

    That's true, Ted, but this was done with a B team. No one is pretending it's anything like the Euro or Copa America or even the African Cup of Nations. But it IS the continental championship and there's always an emerging team that is a hard out.

    That was Panama this time around. They beat Mexico twice. They were EXTREMELY well-drilled defensively. If they carry this through to the remaining qualifiers, they're going to be the third automatic qualifier (or even the 2nd, if Mexico continues to suck).

    And really there are probably 5 main tiers to CONCACAF: 1. USA & Mexico; 2. Costa Rica and one of Jamaica or T&T (usually) and Honduras; 3. Panama (except this year), Guatemala, El Salvador, the other big island team that isn't in the 2nd tier; 4. Cuba, Haiti, Canada; 5. Remaining Central American teams, remaining Caribbean teams

  • Ted S.||

    Didn't a couple of other countries send what were basically B teams, too?

    I mean, I'm glad they won, and I watched the final. But with the exception of Oceania, the Gold Cup isn't something to compare to the other confederations' championships, I think.

    (And I think the US and Costa Rica are going to be the first two qualifiers.)

  • Timon 19||

    Mexico sort of sent a B team.

    Costa Rica had enough first choice players to not be called a B team. Honduras was mostly A.

    Everyone else sent their best.

    And of course the Gold Cup isn't Copa America or Euro. It's what we have, and we curbstomped everyone, which has NOT been the case, even in our best years. Last time we sent a B team we limped to the final and got taken apart by Mexico after we scored the first 2 goals. This was them WITH Chicharito, so Mexico was playing for keeps that year.

    The best part of this was that we beat the crap out of teams with marginal players, and thus built a ton of depth. It also appears that everyone has bought into Klinsy's way totally, and that can only help. That team looked like a TEAM and it was doubly awesome to see Beasley captain the side to a title, Donovan prove he's still a great player and Holden to start his comeback (until today - hope it's minor, but it doesn't sound good).

  • Timon 19||

    Great that you did your research and all, but that was a reply about the World Cup.

    The Gold Cup has indeed only been won by 3. It's also nowhere near the prestige of the World Cup, but it is the regional championship and earns you a berth (or half of one, this time) to the very lucrative Confederations Cup.

    It is also notable that the US steamrolled almost everyone with basically a B team, and that this was mostly an exercise in 1. developing a cohesive style of play in the entire pool down to the marginal players, 2. giving some fringe players a shot at making the full team, 3. developing depth in the player pool itself, 4. reintegrating some guys who have been away for one reason or another.

    That we won it at a trot and scored a ton of goals along the way is something to be proud of.

  • ||

    He's talking about how the US has never won the WC not the gold cup. Only 9 teams have won the WC.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Jury nullification: Not guilty.

    Now, let's go have a beer.

  • Hyperion||

    I'm with the NSA, and I'm here to help you with that problem you're having...

  • Virginian||

    2 AM and he hopped a big fence? He wasn't asking for directions to choir practice.

    What the fuck is with this weird solicitude people have to criminals? Criminals are dangerous animals. They're not like George Clooney and his wacky pals ripping off casino owners. The gentleman thief is a fucking myth.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    SMH. Sullum’s cherry-picked citations and interpretations are pretty bad.

    Skipped right past the 1st link’s inconvenient “this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide” clause, and while using the 2nd assumes that hopping a fence and standing on a driveway is a forcible entry. Apparently we should have the right to kill trespassers upon discovery, because MERICA

    You trying to get some hits from drudge?

  • Irish||

    Skipped right past the 1st link’s inconvenient “this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide”

    That's because the shooting didn't result in a homicide:

    On Friday a New Orleans homeowner was arrested for attempted second-degree murder after shooting a teenager.

    The kid was not killed, he is in critical condition.

    Apparently we should have the right to kill trespassers upon discovery, because MERICA

    He didn't kill him and he claims he didn't shoot him 'upon discovery,' but shot him when he thought the kid had a gun.

    I don't know how I feel about the case, but you should be more accurate in your claims when you are attacking someone else for supposedly being inaccurate.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    He got shot in the head less than a day ago. A little premature, but the odds are against him.

    I don't see how merely thinking someone might have a gun passes the smell test.

    This is a gift to the race baiters.

  • robc||

    I don't see how merely thinking someone might have a gun passes the smell test.

    I dont see how it doesnt. It fits the exact freakin description for when deadly force is allowed.

  • Virginian||

    He got shot in the head less than a day ago. A little premature, but the odds are against him.

    He lived to make into the hospital. I'd say his chances are 50/50.

    I don't see how merely thinking someone might have a gun passes the smell test.

    Huh what? The punk hopped the guy's fence at 2 AM. This is not simple trespassing. He hopped a tall, spiked fence late at night and did not flee when the dog barked or when the homeowner came out to investigate.

    Oh, and what the fuck is with these idiots bleating about "unarmed" people. No one is unarmed, humans have been killing with their bare hands since we first evolved.

    This is a gift to the race baiters.

    In high school I was told that ordering my coffee black was racially insensitive. The manias of retards are not a reason for intelligent people to change anything about their lives.

  • Xenocles||

    Just as a gun is a magic talisman that fills its holder with evil, it is also a magic talisman that makes the bearer invincible from anyone without his own talisman.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I thought that you were more likely to have a criminal turn the gun on you than use it in self-defense.

    What narrative are we using this week?

  • Xenocles||

    The one that helps the cause, of course.

  • MasterDarque||

    black coffee is racist?

  • robc||

    you should be more accurate in your claims when you are attacking someone else for supposedly being inaccurate.

    Its a form of joez law. A worse than normal form.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    assumes that hopping a fence and standing on a driveway is a forcible entry.

    I suppose you think a fence implies an invitation to enter.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Definitely shows that there wasn't consent to enter but the forcible entry sounds like a predicate to being able to respond with necessary force. Shouldn't there be a little more than trespassing?

  • robc||

    but the forcible entry sounds like a predicate to being able to respond with necessary force.

    Then you need to read the fucking law again. Because you have it entirely wrong.

    There is about 3 different ways the shooting is justified under the law. They are all borderline, but they are all there.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Which one do you like? Only 4 works for me.

  • robc||

    Sounds like you like 1 more than I do. 4 is greater than 3.

    It only takes 1 for reasonable doubt.

    (I have no clue what numbering system you are referring to)

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    The statute lists 4 but it looks like 3 of them would not be applicable.

    Sorry, thought you read it.

  • robc||

    I read multiple statutes that applied.

    They werent numbered 1 thru 4.

  • robc||

    Looking at the statutes again, the numbering 1-4 is in LRS 14:20, WHICH DOESNT FUCKING APPLY BUT THE FUCKER IS STILL ALIVE YOU FUCKING MORON.

  • robc||

    s/BUT/BECAUSE/

  • robc||

    LRS 14:19A an LRS 14:19B both seem to apply for sure.

    B a little less so, not sure where exactly the shooter was.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    y so mad?

    The author made an arguments under two statutes with links to both.

    First is self-defense, which requires no homicide.
    Second is justifiable homicide.

    P.S. Fuck you.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    I have a lot of respect for Sullum's writing, but this was a pretty bad analysis. Makes Reason look like fucking infowars

  • robc||

    Second is justifiable homicide.

    Which doesnt apply at the current time. No need for US to discuss it at all, much less base arguments off it.

    Im "mad" because you cant fucking read.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Dear Asshole robc,

    B is a presumption to establish reasonable belief, not the rule. The problem is the presumption clearly requires unlawful AND forcible entry.

  • robc||

    The problem is the presumption clearly requires unlawful AND forcible entry.

    Bullshit.

    I quote: the person using defensive force had reason to believe that an unlawful entry had, or was about to, occur.

    He had reason to believe an unlawful entry was about to occur. He meets that standard in B. No need to wait for the unlawful and forcible entry, just it being imminent is enough.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Are you quoting the article or source? My complaint was against the author's cherry-picking (or conclusion motivated interpretation). The second statute was raised by the author and cited (probably for completeness). However, if it establishes justification for killing, don't you think you'd likely be justified in NOT killing if you met it?

    Rule #1: Read from the beginning.

    You're quoting half of a presumption to help a defendant establish that his use of force was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. This is why Sullum questioned whether it would be different had Coulter put his hand on the doorknob (to which the answer should be YES).

    B. For the purposes of [Use of force or violence in defense], there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling ... 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 ... if both of the following occur:

    (1) [Coulter] was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling AND
    (2) [Landry] knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred

    Do you now see the key details missing, such as the unlawful and forcible entry of the dwelling? Coulter hopped a fence and was on his driveway and was met by Landry. Unless you eat, sleep, and shit on your driveway, I wouldn't call it your dwelling.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Lot of houses have those fenced, locked courtyards and yards in NO. People who climb those fences and break in to those yards and courtyards are routinely busted for unlawful treapass and breaking and entering. Even if they don't get into the building.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Jumping a locked, spike tipped fence IS forcible entry.

    That earns you a bullet.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This is a gift to the race baiters.

    What?

    A gift from whom?

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    creepy ass crackas

  • Fatty Bolger||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Shouldn't there be a little more than trespassing?

    Like, say, apparently reaching for a weapon?

    Maybe a jury, when apprised of the facts, will accept his actions as those of a "reasonable man" in the circumstances. Maybe a Grand Jury will decline to send the case on.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Est. 30 feet away upon [making] a "move, as if to reach for something," and Landry went for the headshot.

    This is not a winner. Too many assumptions and this guy is a white caucasian. Just saying the 2A crowd should steer clear of this shit.

  • Virginian||

    This is not a winner. Too many assumptions and this guy is a white caucasian. Just saying the 2A crowd should steer clear of this shit.

    Fuck yourself. This is one of the reasons the 2A exists: so homeowners can defend themselves from sketchy dudes who hop fences at 2AM.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Fuck you.

    What constitutes sketchy?
    What if it was 1 AM? 12 AM? 11 PM? 8PM?

    Too much power to give w/ state approval.

  • Irish||

    What constitutes sketchy?

    He jumped a fence into the guy's property at 2 A.M. If that isn't sketchy, I don't know what is.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    So, if someone trespasses at night, it's sketchy per se, but not during normal business hours?

    Got it.

  • Irish||

    No. If someone walks onto my property at 1 P.M. there are any number of reasons they could be there. If someone jumps a fence onto a part of my property that is off limits at 2 A.M. that is a vastly different situation.

    Honestly, you seem to be ignoring the fact that he had to jump a high fence with spikes on it to get where he was going. I also don't know how you can possibly not understand that someone coming on your property during normal business hours is normal and someone coming on your property at 2 A.M. is not.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Because I think your standard for justifiable homicide is not standard at all.

    Fuck, haven't you ever been out late at night? Maybe a few regrettable nights as a kid?

  • Irish||

    Fuck, haven't you ever been out late at night? Maybe a few regrettable nights as a kid?

    If by 'few regrettable nights' you mean 'got drunk and puked on my bathroom floor' then yes.

    If you mean 'committed multiple robberies and got shot while attempting to commit another' then the answer is no.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    A blanket rule that imminent harm is established by virtue of time of day seems a little crazy.

    Is it at all conceivable that Landry (or the next case) did not actually see Coulter reach for anything but is establishing a defense?

  • Irish||

    A blanket rule that imminent harm is established by virtue of time of day seems a little crazy.

    Is it at all conceivable that Landry (or the next case) did not actually see Coulter reach for anything but is establishing a defense?

    I'm not arguing that imminent harm is established by time of day. I'm arguing that reasonable suspicion that someone seeks to harm you is established by someone jumping a fence into your yard at a ridiculous time of day.

    As for him establishing a defense, I totally agree that Landry could be lying. That's why I'm not assuming anything until I see more evidence.

    The problem is that you've used multiple bizarre false equivalencies. You said 'haven't we all done dumb things as kids?' when the 'dumb thing' in this case is multiple robberies and illegally leaping a fence into someones yard with the likely desire of committing another one. You also acted as if there's some equivalence between a person jumping a fence into someone's yard at 2 A.M. and someone walking onto another person's property during reasonable hours. There's obviously a major difference between those two things, and claiming otherwise is dishonest.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    The past behavior is irrelevant to this particular act of defense. Don't try to say someone's character or criminal history is a proper justification.

    As for your other point, I can't agree with a stronger presumption of a deadly threat merely because it's late. That sounds like the adult equivalent of being afraid of the dark.

    The statute was written to avoid this shit by including "forcible" and not relying merely on "unlawful," which you seem to prefer.

  • Duke||

    So, if someone trespasses at night, it's sketchy per se, but not during normal business hours? Got it.

    Now I know, and you certainly know, that you really do see the difference between the two.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    No, I don't because the time doesn't matter.

    Burglaries occur during the day too. To say that solely because it happened at 2 AM there is an automatic presumption that someone's life is in imminent danger is a stretch. Maybe he thought the house was empty?

  • Duke||

    No, I don't because the time doesn't matter... he thought the house was empty?

    Well then, here’s wishing you have a black male attempt to burglarize your house at 2 am.

  • Irish||

    Well then, here’s wishing you have a black male attempt to burglarize your house at 2 am.

    Don't know why the fact that he's black is relevant.

    Burglaries occur during the day too. To say that solely because it happened at 2 AM there is an automatic presumption that someone's life is in imminent danger is a stretch. Maybe he thought the house was empty?

    Yes, but if someone comes to my house at noon there are non-burglary reasons that he might be there. If he hops a fence into my backyard at 2 A.M., there is no legal reason he could possibly be there.

  • Duke||

    You missed the point of my reply entirely. In this case, a black male was committing a burglary in a neighborhood where black males have 1) raped, 2) robbed) 3) killed and 4) mugged people. I know, because I live near there. The point was what would this internet warrior do if a black male had climbed a security fence and was near his back door. Would he be all non-racial and high and mighty then? Would you be afraid? When a crime is committed, race of the perpetrator is recorded. Is that racist in your book? You sound like a little white guy who is really, really worried that he might be a racist.

    I live in New Orleans and have personally experienced lots of black crime. So yeah, race kid of fucking matters.

  • Xenocles||

    "The point was what would this internet warrior do if a black male had climbed a security fence and was near his back door."

    So if an unknown white kid jumped your fence at 0200 you'd be cool with it? I guess that's the crux of the matter. If you answer yes, you're pretty much a racist. If you answer no, then I guess the race doesn't matter in this situation.

  • Duke||

    If black males had committed an extremely disproportionate share of violent crimes in my neighborhood, my alert might be higher if I found a black intruder at my home than a white intruder simply based on a statistical probability that this guy might kill me or rape my wife. As I mentioned earlier, this neighborhood (and entire city) has been plagued with an extreme amount of murders, car jackings and rapes by black males. It’s sad, but it’s unfortunately the truth. There is also a lot of gang activity here. A black male was murdered by another black male across the street from my house in broad daylight. I was working from home that day and heard the bullets whizzing by my window where I work. When you experience something like that, please do get back to me so we can discuss this issue further.

    Not that I’d be “ok” with either race intruding onto my property. But you already know that. You’d just rather try to call people racists without any proof. Which is what The Left does every day.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    The race assumption is the elephant and what will likely enable the state to chalk up another win if this gets to a jury.

    Landry should have kept his mouth shut. His admission to seeing Coulter reach for something as he approached is going to haunt him by making it easier for prosecution to paint him as an aggressor.

  • Redmanfms||

    His admission to seeing Coulter reach for something as he approached is going to haunt him by making it easier for prosecution to paint him as an aggressor.

    How?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    No, I don't because the time doesn't matter.

    It's mattered in the law for hundreds of years.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Burglaries occur during the day too. To say that solely because it happened at 2 AM there is an automatic presumption that someone's life is in imminent danger is a stretch.

    In Texas -- don't know about LA -- deadly force is justified if you reasonable believe it is immediately necessary to prevent (among other things) Theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

    I don't know if you want to call that an automatic presumption that someone's life is in imminent danger, but is certainly stands in for that element as compared to robbery, aggravated robbery, burglary, etc. where deadly force is also justified regardless of time of day. It definitely, though, shows that time of time is relevant in some jurisdictions.

  • Irish||

    For the record, I'm not willing to make an assumption either way until I see more evidence. That said, I don't know how you can be arguing that jumping a fence onto someone's property at 2 in the morning isn't a sign that he was attempting to commit some sort of crime, and I also don't know how you can argue that the race of the shooter is any way important to whether his actions were legal or not.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    I agree that the signs point to attempting to commit some sort of crime. We diverge on whether that was sufficient to shoot in defense. This really expands defense and the whole "imminent threat" idea.

  • Lyle||

    Young male.

    New Orleans.

    Climbed a fence into your backyard.

    2am in the morning.

    What else is he possibly thinking of doing?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He was obviously just looking for a short cut to the 7-11 for his tea and skittles because he was afraid of be profiled by some creepy ass-cracker.

  • Irish||

    This is not a winner. Too many assumptions and this guy is a white caucasian. Just saying the 2A crowd should steer clear of this shit.

    So we should decide if someone's actions are justified and defend them based on what race he is? Wow. That seems awfully racist of you.

  • Redmanfms||

    This guy is an opportunist gun grabber concern troll.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    I like guns

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    No, but look at how disingenuous the media was in that "other" case.

  • robc||

    So the fuck what?

    Fuck the media.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Because you're relying on a jury to keep this guy from getting F'd in the A for a long time.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Better to be judged by 12 than be let down for the last time by 6 pallbearers.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, a cop would never even get looked at twice about this. And yet cops receive training and citizens do not. That would indicate to me that the cop should be held tot he higher standard. When you do f'ed up shit like jump peoples fences and 2 am to burglarize them, than bad things are probably going to happen. That kid should have had some serious intervention before this happened. His family and law enforcement knew his history. It was really a matter of time.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    creepy ass crackas

    Better to die on your knees than risk being spoken badly of by Melissa Harris Perry and Joe Scarborough, eh?

  • Sidd Finch||

    HE GOT OUT OF HIS CAR HOUSE!!1!

  • Agammamon||

    "there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business,"

    Well, he *wasn't* in the dwelling, he has in the yard. Granted it was 2 am and he most likely was up to some nefarious business

    "If he had closed that distance and put his hand on the door knob before being shot, would that have made Landry's use of force justified?"

    Well yeah, it really does. Simply being in someone's yard at 2 am is trespassing. Yes I do think that the homeowner/resident would have had the right to confront the kid armed, but at that point there's still a whole lot of other things they kid could have been doing that wouldn't justify lethal force, the kid's intent would have been clarified if he had been jiggling the doorknob.

    A simple reading of the statutes you've linked *doesn't* in any way show the homeowner having legal cover for what he did.

    All that said though, again - murder is an excessive charge. Its manslaughter at the worst.

  • Agammamon||

    Though further reading has me thinking even an arrest for manslaughter is pre-mature at this point.

  • ThatsOutrageous||

    Well said. This is very different situation if he's got a hand on the door knob or trying to open a window.

    Without more, we have Landry to decide the outcome with no evidence of the threat.

    I agree, manslaughter should be the worst outcome.

  • Azathoth!!||

    He jumped a locked, spiked fence--he didn't just wander into the yard.

  • Sidd Finch||

    The trolls, don't feed them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement