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

[Crackerjaxon]

Zimmerman Redux, Merritt Landry | Louisiana Self-defense - Downtrend.com

Hazouri reports that Landry, who has a baby daughter and whose wife is pregnant, believed that the victim was trying to break into his house. “All I know is that Merritt had told his family that he had said: ‘Freeze!’ and it looked like the guy turned at him and had his hand on his hip,” Hazouri reported.

The rear door of Merritt Landry’s home, and the driveway where car was parked, when Landry came upon intruder at 2:00AM.

Landry has been charged with attempted second degree murder. His bond was set to $10,000; he posted bond late Friday afternoon. Landry works for the City of New Orleans as a building inspector. The city says he has been placed on emergency suspension without pay pending the outcome of this case.

This is getting ridiculous. The prosecutor is going after this man only because he is a white man who killed a black man, and had it been a black man who killed that young man no one would have said shit.

Do people realize what this will lead to if it keeps up?

Do we realize what this will to lead to if it keeps up? Yes, it will lead to a serious reassessment of the right for every fool in America to have a gun and to shoot first and ask questions later. It will lead to equality in that if a black person shoots a white person or a white person shoots a black person, they will be arrested and treated equally by the law. That's what it will lead up to. The fact you think that whites are threatened by this kind of thing is pathetic. As a white, you expect to be able to shoot black people with no repercussions: well, guess what: there will be repercussions, and if you don't like it, move to an all white country.

Maybe it will lead to the realization that attacking people and breaking into their property might get you killed regardless of what color you are.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Democrats protect their own....

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Hmm, sounds like Landry has a much better case than I initially thought.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Because Liberals love Black Folk and hate Whites?

Including a lot of self-hate and White Guilt?

Because they're Sheeple and can't tear themselves away from the public circle-jerk?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Because Liberals love Black Folk and hate Whites?

Including a lot of self-hate and White Guilt?

Because they're Sheeple and can't tear themselves away from the public circle-jerk?

Yeah, but they also ignore innocent black victims who die at the hands of Hispanic criminals too. And the same goes for black on black crime, black victims are invisible to the race baiting grievance industry leaders.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Hmm, sounds like Landry has a much better case than I initially thought.

yeah the kid had to scale a 7 foot fence

 

[JohnA]

I don't understand why people think someone entering a house to steal should be killed. Since when was the sentence for burglary execution?

It just seems an excuse to blow someone away. If someone plans to enter your house to burlarize it, you feel it is approproprite to kill that person. Whatever the law allows or doesn't allow as far as shooting anyone who enters your home unauthorized, why, as an individual, do you wish to kill the person? Why talk about shooting them through the head or turning their body into Swiss cheese?

For example, why couldn't the guy in the original post have simply fired a warning shot into the sky and warned the kid he was armed? Then lock up his home tight and call the police? Once the supposed burglar knows he has been spotted and that the potential victim is armed, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he would leg it? Why kill him? And most importantly of all, why do so many posters who say they'd shoot him describe the potential experience of killing an intruder with such pleasure and relish?

The home owner did warn the thug when he said freeze. If the thug ran away at that point he likely would not have got shot because shooting in the back is a big no no unless he has done something real bad. But sounds like this thug turned toward him & grabbed waste area & got shot in the face.

He didn't warn the potential burglar he was armed. He didn't fire a warning shot. Saying freeze doesn't mean a threat of death. That seems part of the game, actually. If you warn someone you are armed or are going to shoot him, he might run away and cause you (not you specifically, but a generic you) to lose the chance of shooting him. It really does appear that most pro-gun people are anxious to kill someone, which, imo, doesn't make 'you' any better than the person you want to kill, i.e., a thug, at least at heart if not yet in action.[/QUOTE
your asumming the intruder was intelligent enough and not high, that he would understand when the home owner said * im armed and ill shot you * * that is of course if he understood english .

 

[JohnA]

The home owner did warn the thug when he said freeze. If the thug ran away at that point he likely would not have got shot because shooting in the back is a big no no unless he has done something real bad. But sounds like this thug turned toward him & grabbed waste area & got shot in the face.

Let's say you are the shooter. What are you going to say the about the kid? He Reached for something or not say he did. Of course you will say he reached for something, otherwise you just shot an unarmed kid because you were scared.

Good point. You can always say 'he reached for something,' and then it looks like you had a right to shoot, regardless of whether he actually did reach for something. One of the things that is notable is the total acceptance by the pro-gun people of whatever the shooter says: the story of the armed citizen is believed totally and w/o question every time. Why is that?

makes a change from the bleeding heart liberals who always except as fact the LYING PRESS when i comes to white/killing black .

with the zimmerman case they showed a photo if the victim 3/4 years younger than he was knowing it to be a* false impression of the persons likeness as of the day of shooting *
/ they called him a good innocent * child* when he was a* youth* *good smart kid who had done nothing wrong, forgetting his troubles at school and the pix of him holding a gun
.called zimmerman a white hispanic ( NO SUCH RACE ) he is mixed race same as oboma just to play the race card .

. the same thing is happening here already we are getting excuses for the back kid to be on the property of the shooter , and sugestions the property owner had NO RIGHT TO EVEN TELL HIM TO FREEZE BEFORE HE SHOT HIM .

if it was a black shooter and a young white punk intruder would you have still have posted the same question I DOUBT IT

works both ways

this administation had polorized the country forcing folks to be on ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER of the racial situation .

 

[ABikerSailor]

The home owner did warn the thug when he said freeze. If the thug ran away at that point he likely would not have got shot because shooting in the back is a big no no unless he has done something real bad. But sounds like this thug turned toward him & grabbed waste area & got shot in the face.

He didn't warn the potential burglar he was armed. He didn't fire a warning shot. Saying freeze doesn't mean a threat of death. That seems part of the game, actually. If you warn someone you are armed or are going to shoot him, he might run away and cause you (not you specifically, but a generic you) to lose the chance of shooting him. It really does appear that most pro-gun people are anxious to kill someone, which, imo, doesn't make 'you' any better than the person you want to kill, i.e., a thug, at least at heart if not yet in action.[/QUOTE
your asumming the intruder was intelligent enough and not high, that he would understand when the home owner said * im armed and ill shot you * * that is of course if he understood english .

Really? Do you have any proof that the intruder wasn't able to understand English?

Do you have the toxicity report to say they were high?

Do you have their IQ scores?

If not..................then what proof do you have to say the things you did?