14 y.o. black intrudor shot and killed in Louisiana, white home owner arrested.

[Freemason9]

I don't know about this. I vote Democratic in nearly every election--I can't imagine voting for any of these fools the Repubulicans continue to market in national campaigns these days.

HAVING SAID THAT--I can't defend the "rights" of any criminal that is engaging in illegal activity. By my thinking, if this fool scaled a fence and was messing with the homeowner's door at 2:00 a.m., he's already decided to accept some level of risk. I see no need for the homeowner to be concerned about the welfare of the criminal--he was a threat, and he paid the price.

If you don't want to get shot, stop breaking & entering. That's risky behavior.

 

[JQPublic1]

What's the difference between a locked gate and a locked door?

Nothing when there is a property owner holding a .357 Magnum on the other side!

 

[The Professor]

One less criminal to lock up for the next 60 years! Nice shot home owner...little thug was trespassing and on private property with intent to harm the man and his property so he was in the right. Hope he gets off

I think that little thief should have been shot..IF HE ENTERED HIS HOME...not his yard.

There are laws for a reason and if people start shooting people for being on thier lawns, what kind of world would this be.

Seriously, whats wrong with you?

Oh and fuck that little thief.

You are correct. Merritt Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Marshall Coulter had trespassed onto his yard. The fact that Landry thought Coulter intended to break into his home is irrelevant (if Landry had been inside the dwelling and Coulter had been in the PROCESS of breaking into his home or had already broken into the home, that would be another matter).

Self defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden shifts to Landry to prove that he acted within the law. There is only one legal question involved: When Landry pulled the trigger, did he have a reasonable fear that he would suffer serious bodily injury or death if he did not use deadly force against Coulter? The required element of reasonable fear is established using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury will determine whether a “reasonably prudent man” would have resorted to the use of deadly force considering all the attendant circumstances.

Landry apparently shot Coulter from a distance of 30 feet, and there was no evidence that Coulter was advancing towards him; therefore, he certainly wasn't in fear of being assaulted by Coulter. Landry's entire defense hangs in one thin thread: He THOUGHT Coulter was reaching for a gun. Landry will have to take the stand to persuade the jury that a reasonably prudent person in the exact circumstances would have believed Coulter was reaching for a gun. The fact that Coulter didn't have a gun in his possession, nor did he verbally threaten Landry in any way, may be too difficult to overcome. Jurors might think the “he was reaching for a gun” explanation to be the defense of last resort and they may reject it out of hand unless Landry comes up with a very convincing account.

I don't know what the jury will do. However, one thing is clear: Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Coulter trespassed into his yard. As far as I know that is the law in every jurisdiction. At least I hope it is.

 

[Kondor3]

The State of Louisiana website has the following definition:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

§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.

==================================

I smell one or more loopholes.

 

[Zona]

I don't know about this. I vote Democratic in nearly every election--I can't imagine voting for any of these fools the Repubulicans continue to market in national campaigns these days.

HAVING SAID THAT--I can't defend the "rights" of any criminal that is engaging in illegal activity. By my thinking, if this fool scaled a fence and was messing with the homeowner's door at 2:00 a.m., he's already decided to accept some level of risk. I see no need for the homeowner to be concerned about the welfare of the criminal--he was a threat, and he paid the price.

If you don't want to get shot, stop breaking & entering. That's risky behavior.

Please quote us ANYWHERE it says he was messing with a door. He jumped the fence, the dog barked and the shooter shot him. He Is ishitstain thief, but this is a bad shoot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the kid is playing ball at 2AM, there is already a serious problem. The kid had it coming, he was a thief. The homeowner should have waited until the kid broke in so there wouldn't be any question, not because it would have had an impact on an innocent.

We are saying the same thing. Fuck that kid but kill him legally. Yes, this is about innocence. If that guy shot a kid...yes even at two a.m....who was retrieving a ball, that would be good with you? If so how?

The dumbass, thieving kid climbed somebody's 7-foot fence at 2am, to penetrate their yard.

And, if you look at a photo of that yard...

...it's really more like a SIDE yard than a BACK yard, butted-up against a skinny, elongated house that seems to run most of the way back to the rear limit of the property.

With the windows and doors (access to the interior) mere feet, rather than yards, from where the perp was standing in the driveway / side-of-the-house.

And if the kid was already back by the car (which can be seen here towards the rear of this smallish property), then, it's a good bet he was either looking to break into the car or the back of the house, where he could not be seen from the street.

Personally, I think the guy has stretched the limits of the Castle Law or Self-Defense about as far as it can be stretched, and he most certainly could have saved the kid an injury and himself the criminal-legal problem if he had done things in a more clean-cut manner, and he is, indeed, responsible for his use of that firearm, however, I continue to believe that sufficient wiggle-room may exist in those laws, for the shooter to squirm through.

We're gonna find out, soon enough, one way or another, anyway.

First time I have seen a house built that narrow that wasn't on wheels.

 

[Annie]

I think this says it pretty succinctly:

Should we be happy or sad that Merritt Landry shot Marshal Coulter? | WGNO

Should we be happy or sad that Merritt Landry shot Marshal Coulter?


When Marigny resident Merritt Landry shot 14-year-old Marshal Coulter late one night last week, I didn’t know whether to be happy or sad. Happy a law abiding citizen shot an intruder; or sad another 14-year-old black kid in New Orleans is lost.

Around 2 a.m. last Friday, Landry shot Coulter in the head in his side yard on Mandeville Street. Landry’s dog alerted him of the intruder. Inside Landry’s house was his pregnant wife and baby daughter.

Landry claims Coulter was reaching for something when he shot him. Coulter was unarmed.

Landry’s life would have had to be at risk for the shooting to be justified. Obviously police that night didn’t feel it was justified, or that Landry’s life was in “imminent danger”, so they arrested him. Landry’s lawyer feels his client will be exonerated. And he might be right.

Even though Landry is white and Coulter is black, this isn’t a racial incident. The questions that need to be answered are easy: Was Landry’s or his family’s life in danger? And what about Coulter? 14 years old and out on the street at 2am?!? How is that possible? Isn’t Coulter’s mom somewhat responsible too?

One side of me is sad: we’ve lost another young black kid to crime. And another side of me is glad: a homeowner took things into his own hands and shot a criminal on his property that was obviously up to no good. A court will decide Landry’s fate. And God will decide the critically injured Coulter’s.

While the Zimmerman analogies might be tried to be made, remember the 'shooter' wasn't looking for this young teen. No, the teen came to his residence. That he didn't enter? Really, is that necessary at that hour?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The State of Louisiana website has the following definition:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

§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.

==================================

I smell one or more loopholes.

They make good sense to me; not sure why you call them 'loop holes'.

BTW, thanks for posting those law codes.

 

[Zona]

One less criminal to lock up for the next 60 years! Nice shot home owner...little thug was trespassing and on private property with intent to harm the man and his property so he was in the right. Hope he gets off

I think that little thief should have been shot..IF HE ENTERED HIS HOME...not his yard.

There are laws for a reason and if people start shooting people for being on thier lawns, what kind of world would this be.

Seriously, whats wrong with you?

Oh and fuck that little thief.

You are correct. Merritt Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Marshall Coulter had trespassed onto his yard. The fact that Landry thought Coulter intended to break into his home is irrelevant (if Landry had been inside the dwelling and Coulter had been in the PROCESS of breaking into his home or had already broken into the home, that would be another matter).

Self defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden shifts to Landry to prove that he acted within the law. There is only one legal question involved: When Landry pulled the trigger, did he have a reasonable fear that he would suffer serious bodily injury or death if he did not use deadly force against Coulter? The required element of reasonable fear is established using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury will determine whether a “reasonably prudent man” would have resorted to the use of deadly force considering all the attendant circumstances.

Landry apparently shot Coulter from a distance of 30 feet, and there was no evidence that Coulter was advancing towards him; therefore, he certainly wasn't in fear of being assaulted by Coulter. Landry's entire defense hangs in one thin thread: He THOUGHT Coulter was reaching for a gun. Landry will have to take the stand to persuade the jury that a reasonably prudent person in the exact circumstances would have believed Coulter was reaching for a gun. The fact that Coulter didn't have a gun in his possession, nor did he verbally threaten Landry in any way, may be too difficult to overcome. Jurors might think the “he was reaching for a gun” explanation to be the defense of last resort and they may reject it out of hand unless Landry comes up with a very convincing account.

I don't know what the jury will do. However, one thing is clear: Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Coulter trespassed into his yard. As far as I know that is the law in every jurisdiction. At least I hope it is.

Not sure if anyone can dispute this.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think this says it pretty succinctly:

Should we be happy or sad that Merritt Landry shot Marshal Coulter? | WGNO

Should we be happy or sad that Merritt Landry shot Marshal Coulter?


When Marigny resident Merritt Landry shot 14-year-old Marshal Coulter late one night last week, I didn’t know whether to be happy or sad. Happy a law abiding citizen shot an intruder; or sad another 14-year-old black kid in New Orleans is lost.

Around 2 a.m. last Friday, Landry shot Coulter in the head in his side yard on Mandeville Street. Landry’s dog alerted him of the intruder. Inside Landry’s house was his pregnant wife and baby daughter.

Landry claims Coulter was reaching for something when he shot him. Coulter was unarmed.

Landry’s life would have had to be at risk for the shooting to be justified. Obviously police that night didn’t feel it was justified, or that Landry’s life was in “imminent danger”, so they arrested him. Landry’s lawyer feels his client will be exonerated. And he might be right.

Even though Landry is white and Coulter is black, this isn’t a racial incident. The questions that need to be answered are easy: Was Landry’s or his family’s life in danger? And what about Coulter? 14 years old and out on the street at 2am?!? How is that possible? Isn’t Coulter’s mom somewhat responsible too?

One side of me is sad: we’ve lost another young black kid to crime. And another side of me is glad: a homeowner took things into his own hands and shot a criminal on his property that was obviously up to no good. A court will decide Landry’s fate. And God will decide the critically injured Coulter’s.

While the Zimmerman analogies might be tried to be made, remember the 'shooter' wasn't looking for this young teen. No, the teen came to his residence. That he didn't enter? Really, is that necessary at that hour?

Apparently the People of Louisiana think so. This is the law they have on justifiable homicide.

(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.

 

[Annie]

I think that little thief should have been shot..IF HE ENTERED HIS HOME...not his yard.

There are laws for a reason and if people start shooting people for being on thier lawns, what kind of world would this be.

Seriously, whats wrong with you?

Oh and fuck that little thief.

You are correct. Merritt Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Marshall Coulter had trespassed onto his yard. The fact that Landry thought Coulter intended to break into his home is irrelevant (if Landry had been inside the dwelling and Coulter had been in the PROCESS of breaking into his home or had already broken into the home, that would be another matter).

Self defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden shifts to Landry to prove that he acted within the law. There is only one legal question involved: When Landry pulled the trigger, did he have a reasonable fear that he would suffer serious bodily injury or death if he did not use deadly force against Coulter? The required element of reasonable fear is established using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury will determine whether a “reasonably prudent man” would have resorted to the use of deadly force considering all the attendant circumstances.

Landry apparently shot Coulter from a distance of 30 feet, and there was no evidence that Coulter was advancing towards him; therefore, he certainly wasn't in fear of being assaulted by Coulter. Landry's entire defense hangs in one thin thread: He THOUGHT Coulter was reaching for a gun. Landry will have to take the stand to persuade the jury that a reasonably prudent person in the exact circumstances would have believed Coulter was reaching for a gun. The fact that Coulter didn't have a gun in his possession, nor did he verbally threaten Landry in any way, may be too difficult to overcome. Jurors might think the “he was reaching for a gun” explanation to be the defense of last resort and they may reject it out of hand unless Landry comes up with a very convincing account.

I don't know what the jury will do. However, one thing is clear: Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Coulter trespassed into his yard. As far as I know that is the law in every jurisdiction. At least I hope it is.

Not sure if anyone can dispute this.

which is why he was charged and will stand trial. The process. Which includes the shooter's priors and such. And such, includes the priors of the juvenile that was shot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think that little thief should have been shot..IF HE ENTERED HIS HOME...not his yard.

There are laws for a reason and if people start shooting people for being on thier lawns, what kind of world would this be.

Seriously, whats wrong with you?

Oh and fuck that little thief.

You are correct. Merritt Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Marshall Coulter had trespassed onto his yard. The fact that Landry thought Coulter intended to break into his home is irrelevant (if Landry had been inside the dwelling and Coulter had been in the PROCESS of breaking into his home or had already broken into the home, that would be another matter).

Self defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden shifts to Landry to prove that he acted within the law. There is only one legal question involved: When Landry pulled the trigger, did he have a reasonable fear that he would suffer serious bodily injury or death if he did not use deadly force against Coulter? The required element of reasonable fear is established using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury will determine whether a “reasonably prudent man” would have resorted to the use of deadly force considering all the attendant circumstances.

Landry apparently shot Coulter from a distance of 30 feet, and there was no evidence that Coulter was advancing towards him; therefore, he certainly wasn't in fear of being assaulted by Coulter. Landry's entire defense hangs in one thin thread: He THOUGHT Coulter was reaching for a gun. Landry will have to take the stand to persuade the jury that a reasonably prudent person in the exact circumstances would have believed Coulter was reaching for a gun. The fact that Coulter didn't have a gun in his possession, nor did he verbally threaten Landry in any way, may be too difficult to overcome. Jurors might think the “he was reaching for a gun” explanation to be the defense of last resort and they may reject it out of hand unless Landry comes up with a very convincing account.

I don't know what the jury will do. However, one thing is clear: Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Coulter trespassed into his yard. As far as I know that is the law in every jurisdiction. At least I hope it is.

Not sure if anyone can dispute this.

Louisiana law disputes it and defines it as justifiable homicide for several reasons.

Section 20 Justifiable 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 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.

 

[jtpr312]

Here's the facts. The little scumbag was there to steal. He was shot. Tough crap for him. A person should have the right to defend their property from thieving little a-holes.

 

[The Professor]

You are correct. Merritt Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Marshall Coulter had trespassed onto his yard. The fact that Landry thought Coulter intended to break into his home is irrelevant (if Landry had been inside the dwelling and Coulter had been in the PROCESS of breaking into his home or had already broken into the home, that would be another matter).

Self defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden shifts to Landry to prove that he acted within the law. There is only one legal question involved: When Landry pulled the trigger, did he have a reasonable fear that he would suffer serious bodily injury or death if he did not use deadly force against Coulter? The required element of reasonable fear is established using the “reasonably prudent man” standard. The jury will determine whether a “reasonably prudent man” would have resorted to the use of deadly force considering all the attendant circumstances.

Landry apparently shot Coulter from a distance of 30 feet, and there was no evidence that Coulter was advancing towards him; therefore, he certainly wasn't in fear of being assaulted by Coulter. Landry's entire defense hangs in one thin thread: He THOUGHT Coulter was reaching for a gun. Landry will have to take the stand to persuade the jury that a reasonably prudent person in the exact circumstances would have believed Coulter was reaching for a gun. The fact that Coulter didn't have a gun in his possession, nor did he verbally threaten Landry in any way, may be too difficult to overcome. Jurors might think the “he was reaching for a gun” explanation to be the defense of last resort and they may reject it out of hand unless Landry comes up with a very convincing account.

I don't know what the jury will do. However, one thing is clear: Landry had no right to use deadly force just because Coulter trespassed into his yard. As far as I know that is the law in every jurisdiction. At least I hope it is.

Not sure if anyone can dispute this.

Louisiana law disputes it and defines it as justifiable homicide for several reasons.

Section 20 Justifiable 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 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.

I disagree. According to the law you quoted (and which I previously read), the presumption of a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary applies only to “a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle” and only when “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.”

This presumption, according to the specific language of the Statute applies only to Landry's dwelling (house), not to the land surrounding the dwelling. Since Landry and Couter were both in the yard, there is no such presumption, and the standard laws of self defense apply. I have already fully explained them to you.

I only hope that neither you nor anyone else acts on the mistaken belief that there is a right in Louisiana or any other state to shoot someone just because he trespassed on your land. I assure you that if you shoot someone just because he is on your land, you will go to jail. Count on it.

Perhaps I should explain that the law values life over property. Thus the use of deadly force is generally not justified if only property interests are involved. According to the Louisiana Statute if a man is in his home and someone is in the very act of breaking in or has broken in, it is presumed the home owner has a reasonable belief that he might suffer death or serious bodily injury if he does not use deadly force. The law is not concerned with the home itself but rather those who are inside. If the dwelling were the concern, the law would not have restricted the use of deadly force to those who where inside.

The same thing applies to an automobile: deadly force can only be used by someone who is inside the car when the intruder tries to break in. There is nothing in the law that suggests that deadly force can be used against someone who merely trespasses on another person's land. The Statute is silent regarding mere trespassers on land, and therefore the law which provides a presumption for the need of deadly force does not apply to such persons. If I am wrong, please quote the specific wording of the Statute which addresses such trespassers and allows the use of deadly force against them.

When you read a law, you must examine the wording very carefully both for what it says and for what it doesn't say. The law – as written – proves my point, not yours.

PS: I am not an expert in criminal law; however I have a JD and have been interpreting legal documents for a long time. I reiterate, there is nothing within the quoted Statute which gives Landry the right to use deadly force against Coulter just because he trespassed on his land. If that's all he has, he will certainly be convicted. The whole case will be about Landry being able to prove he had a reasonable belief that Coulter was reaching for a gun. I don't think he can do it, but I have been surprised by jury verdicts before.

It will be fun to look at your response and mine when the show is over. I stand by my analysis.

 

[Immanuel]

I think this says it pretty succinctly:

Should we be happy or sad that Merritt Landry shot Marshal Coulter? | WGNO

Should we be happy or sad that Merritt Landry shot Marshal Coulter?


When Marigny resident Merritt Landry shot 14-year-old Marshal Coulter late one night last week, I didn’t know whether to be happy or sad. Happy a law abiding citizen shot an intruder; or sad another 14-year-old black kid in New Orleans is lost.

Around 2 a.m. last Friday, Landry shot Coulter in the head in his side yard on Mandeville Street. Landry’s dog alerted him of the intruder. Inside Landry’s house was his pregnant wife and baby daughter.

Landry claims Coulter was reaching for something when he shot him. Coulter was unarmed.

Landry’s life would have had to be at risk for the shooting to be justified. Obviously police that night didn’t feel it was justified, or that Landry’s life was in “imminent danger”, so they arrested him. Landry’s lawyer feels his client will be exonerated. And he might be right.

Even though Landry is white and Coulter is black, this isn’t a racial incident. The questions that need to be answered are easy: Was Landry’s or his family’s life in danger? And what about Coulter? 14 years old and out on the street at 2am?!? How is that possible? Isn’t Coulter’s mom somewhat responsible too?

One side of me is sad: we’ve lost another young black kid to crime. And another side of me is glad: a homeowner took things into his own hands and shot a criminal on his property that was obviously up to no good. A court will decide Landry’s fate. And God will decide the critically injured Coulter’s.

While the Zimmerman analogies might be tried to be made, remember the 'shooter' wasn't looking for this young teen. No, the teen came to his residence. That he didn't enter? Really, is that necessary at that hour?

Knowing you Annie, I can't believe you are even debating the question in your own mind. No question about it, we should be sad about the situation(s) that led to Marshal Coulter's death. Merritt Landry may have been justified in the shooting, but in no way should we be joyous about the death of any young man.

Immie

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not sure if anyone can dispute this.

Louisiana law disputes it and defines it as justifiable homicide for several reasons.

Section 20 Justifiable 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 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.

I disagree. According to the law you quoted (and which I previously read), the presumption of a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary applies only to “a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle” and only when “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.”

This presumption, according to the specific language of the Statute applies only to Landry's dwelling (house), not to the land surrounding the dwelling. Since Landry and Couter were both in the yard, there is no such presumption, and the standard laws of self defense apply. I have already fully explained them to you.

I only hope that neither you nor anyone else acts on the mistaken belief that there is a right in Louisiana or any other state to shoot someone just because he trespassed on your land. I assure you that if you shoot someone just because he is on your land, you will go to jail. Count on it.

Perhaps I should explain that the law values life over property. Thus the use of deadly force is generally not justified if only property interests are involved. According to the Louisiana Statute if a man is in his home and someone is in the very act of breaking in or has broken in, it is presumed the home owner has a reasonable belief that he might suffer death or serious bodily injury if he does not use deadly force. The law is not concerned with the home itself but rather those who are inside. If the dwelling were the concern, the law would not have restricted the use of deadly force to those who where inside.

The same thing applies to an automobile: deadly force can only be used by someone who is inside the car when the intruder tries to break in. There is nothing in the law that suggests that deadly force can be used against someone who merely trespasses on another person's land. The Statute is silent regarding mere trespassers on land, and therefore the law which provides a presumption for the need of deadly force does not apply to such persons. If I am wrong, please quote the specific wording of the Statute which addresses such trespassers and allows the use of deadly force against them.

When you read a law, you must examine the wording very carefully both for what it says and for what it doesn't say. The law – as written – proves my point, not yours.

PS: I am not an expert in criminal law; however I have a JD and have been interpreting legal documents for a long time. I reiterate, there is nothing within the quoted Statute which gives Landry the right to use deadly force against Coulter just because he trespassed on his land. If that's all he has, he will certainly be convicted. The whole case will be about Landry being able to prove he had a reasonable belief that Coulter was reaching for a gun. I don't think he can do it, but I have been surprised by jury verdicts before.

It will be fun to look at your response and mine when the show is over. I stand by my analysis.

But Landry stopped the kid trying to enter his home.
Did you miss this text? I thought it pretty plain:

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.

To miss that I guess you have to be a legal expert.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Louisiana law disputes it and defines it as justifiable homicide for several reasons.

Section 20 Justifiable 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 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.

I disagree. According to the law you quoted (and which I previously read), the presumption of a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary applies only to “a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle” and only when “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.”

This presumption, according to the specific language of the Statute applies only to Landry's dwelling (house), not to the land surrounding the dwelling. Since Landry and Couter were both in the yard, there is no such presumption, and the standard laws of self defense apply. I have already fully explained them to you.

I only hope that neither you nor anyone else acts on the mistaken belief that there is a right in Louisiana or any other state to shoot someone just because he trespassed on your land. I assure you that if you shoot someone just because he is on your land, you will go to jail. Count on it.

Perhaps I should explain that the law values life over property. Thus the use of deadly force is generally not justified if only property interests are involved. According to the Louisiana Statute if a man is in his home and someone is in the very act of breaking in or has broken in, it is presumed the home owner has a reasonable belief that he might suffer death or serious bodily injury if he does not use deadly force. The law is not concerned with the home itself but rather those who are inside. If the dwelling were the concern, the law would not have restricted the use of deadly force to those who where inside.

The same thing applies to an automobile: deadly force can only be used by someone who is inside the car when the intruder tries to break in. There is nothing in the law that suggests that deadly force can be used against someone who merely trespasses on another person's land. The Statute is silent regarding mere trespassers on land, and therefore the law which provides a presumption for the need of deadly force does not apply to such persons. If I am wrong, please quote the specific wording of the Statute which addresses such trespassers and allows the use of deadly force against them.

When you read a law, you must examine the wording very carefully both for what it says and for what it doesn't say. The law – as written – proves my point, not yours.

PS: I am not an expert in criminal law; however I have a JD and have been interpreting legal documents for a long time. I reiterate, there is nothing within the quoted Statute which gives Landry the right to use deadly force against Coulter just because he trespassed on his land. If that's all he has, he will certainly be convicted. The whole case will be about Landry being able to prove he had a reasonable belief that Coulter was reaching for a gun. I don't think he can do it, but I have been surprised by jury verdicts before.

It will be fun to look at your response and mine when the show is over. I stand by my analysis.

But Landry stopped the kid trying to enter his home.
Did you miss this text? I thought it pretty plain:

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.

To miss that I guess you have to be a legal expert.

i guess the state is basing its charges on the bullet casing

being thirty feet from the kid

which i didnt think that would be all that strange

 

[ScienceRocks]

The fact that this thread is 500 post for a intruder that was going to steal something while a girl got nearly stabbed to death doesn't get 1/15th of this. That's sad.

Why do people fight so hard for people that do wrong?

 

[JohnA]

The shooter is relying on the Louisiana Castle statute which is as follows:

§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=78336

This was also reported in the NY Daily News:

A 14-year-old New Orleans boy was shot in the head early Friday morning after a homeowner said the unarmed teen was trying to break into his house.

Homeowner Merritt Landry, 33, who lives in Marigny, allegedly shot Marshall Coulter after fearing for his safety, and told friends and family he thought the teen had a gun.

New Orleans teen shot in the head by man who thought he was burglar: police - NY Daily News

Unfortunately, these types of statutes allow anyone to interpret then utilize them which leads to unnecessary injury or death. I do not have a problem with the man being arrested there will be an investigation and should the facts support his actions he will have be exonerated if not this could serve as a warning to those who may have a predisposition toward acting with out thinking.

This is an important point! People who have guns should not be going around shooting first and asking questions later. "Those who may have a predisposition toward acting without thinking" should not have guns!

please the man was nt *going around * he was in his home minding his own business when a kid illegally entered the premises. he is entitled under the 2nd amendment to own a gun for his protection ,( ratified by the SCOTUS at least 3 times )
get with it you dickhead

 

[JohnA]

Louisiana law disputes it and defines it as justifiable homicide for several reasons.

Section 20 Justifiable 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 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.

I disagree. According to the law you quoted (and which I previously read), the presumption of a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary applies only to “a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle” and only when “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.”

This presumption, according to the specific language of the Statute applies only to Landry's dwelling (house), not to the land surrounding the dwelling. Since Landry and Couter were both in the yard, there is no such presumption, and the standard laws of self defense apply. I have already fully explained them to you.

I only hope that neither you nor anyone else acts on the mistaken belief that there is a right in Louisiana or any other state to shoot someone just because he trespassed on your land. I assure you that if you shoot someone just because he is on your land, you will go to jail. Count on it.

Perhaps I should explain that the law values life over property. Thus the use of deadly force is generally not justified if only property interests are involved. According to the Louisiana Statute if a man is in his home and someone is in the very act of breaking in or has broken in, it is presumed the home owner has a reasonable belief that he might suffer death or serious bodily injury if he does not use deadly force. The law is not concerned with the home itself but rather those who are inside. If the dwelling were the concern, the law would not have restricted the use of deadly force to those who where inside.

The same thing applies to an automobile: deadly force can only be used by someone who is inside the car when the intruder tries to break in. There is nothing in the law that suggests that deadly force can be used against someone who merely trespasses on another person's land. The Statute is silent regarding mere trespassers on land, and therefore the law which provides a presumption for the need of deadly force does not apply to such persons. If I am wrong, please quote the specific wording of the Statute which addresses such trespassers and allows the use of deadly force against them.

When you read a law, you must examine the wording very carefully both for what it says and for what it doesn't say. The law – as written – proves my point, not yours.

PS: I am not an expert in criminal law; however I have a JD and have been interpreting legal documents for a long time. I reiterate, there is nothing within the quoted Statute which gives Landry the right to use deadly force against Coulter just because he trespassed on his land. If that's all he has, he will certainly be convicted. The whole case will be about Landry being able to prove he had a reasonable belief that Coulter was reaching for a gun. I don't think he can do it, but I have been surprised by jury verdicts before.

It will be fun to look at your response and mine when the show is over. I stand by my analysis.

But Landry stopped the kid trying to enter his home.
Did you miss this text? I thought it pretty plain:

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.

To miss that I guess you have to be a legal expert.

LEGAL DEFINITION OF DWELLING






DWELLING: HOUSE. A building inhabited by man. A mansion. (q.v.)
2. A part of a house is, in one sense, a dwelling house; for example, where two or more persons rent of the owner different parts of a house, so as to have among them the whole house, and the owner does not reserve or occupy any part, the separate portion of each will, in cases of burglary, be considered the dwelling house of each. 1 Mood. Cr. bas. 23.
3. At common law, in cases of burglary, under the term dwelling house are included the out-houses within the curtilage or COMMON FENCE with the dwelling house. 3 Inst. 64; 4 Bl. Com. 225; and vide Russ & Ry. Cr. Cas. 170; Id. 186; 16 Mass. 105; 16 John. 203; 18 John. 115; 4 Call, 109; 1 Moody, Cr. Cas. 274; Burglary; Door; House; Jail; Mansion.