New Orleans teen shot in the head by man who thought he was burglar

reply to post by IvanAstikov

You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that crazy individuals act rationally.

In life and death situations, civilians use guns to defend themselves 77 percent of the time.

The estimated number of incidents of defensive gun use in the US is 2.5 million.

So if you're scared of getting raped/murdered then get a gun. You would be much better off than someone who does'nt have one.

Rapists gotta rape

And skaters gonna skate.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

In life and death situations, civilians use guns to defend themselves 77 percent of the time.

The estimated number of incidents of defensive gun use in the US is 2.5 million.

Why "estimated"? Don't these kind of events have to be reported to the local authorities? We shouldn't need to be dealing with educated guesses, you should be able to tell me exactly how many times a firearm has been used in a self-defence situation, both successfully and not so.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

In life and death situations, civilians use guns to defend themselves 77 percent of the time.

The estimated number of incidents of defensive gun use in the US is 2.5 million.

Why "estimated"? Don't these kind of events have to be reported to the local authorities? We shouldn't need to be dealing with educated guesses, you should be able to tell me exactly how many times a firearm has been used in a self-defence situation, both successfully and not so.

Not everyone reports all of the times that an incident like this takes place, hence the word "estimated". And thats probably a very low ball estimate.

So no, sorry, I have no crystal ball where I can tell you every instance of when a firearm has been used in self defence. And the fact that you would demand such a thing is comical.

infogr.am...

There ya go. Read up.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Because every time someone uses a weapon to scare away a burglar or stop a mugging, they don't run and tell the police. Many are relieved to be walking away and just want to get home to settle their nerves. I'll share a short example with you: A friend of mine, [ isn't that the way these always start?] carried concealed. Late one night, he walked to a local store to get cigarettes. 2 guys in the store were watching him and quietly talking to each other and seem to be waiting for him to leave. When he did leave, they followed. As he was walking, he "accidentally" brushed aside his shirt tail, exposing his weapon. The men immediately switched directions and walked away. There was no confrontation and he didn't need to pull his weapon, defusing a situation before it even started. What would he have reported to the police? That 2 men walked out of a store the same time as him? There are estimates, because not everyone runs to the police for every little thing.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by KawRider9

 

Home protection shouldn't entitle someone to shoot anyone they see on their property, whatever the level of threat they present

So by your own admission you do not have the right or as you put it, entitle someone to defend themselves no matter the threat level...
Having intimate knowledge of the neighborhood you live in crime rates and types, the fact that they already made entrance into a commonly interpreted non public area (blocked to the public via an 8ft fence), at 2AM, having a dog barking at a noise within the confines of your property, you investigate it and seeing someone trespassing, not knowing anything other than they are not supposed to be there, unknown if they are armed or not, in low light, you have a split second to shoot or not shoot.

I cannot say I wouldn't have done the same. I do not vilify him for doing it, if he felt threatened then he was more than justified in doing so.

All this arm chair quarterbacking on these events vilifying people acting withing the scope of their legal rights is ridiculous, you were not there, I wasn't there. The only thing that can be judged in this case is the information at the time of the shooting and the events immediately leading up to it. Not the response from the incompetent parents, not the public, only the events at hand.

IMO this "kids" (using the term very loosely, thug or thug wanna be comes to mind as more accurate) actions and choices that night are what caused this to happen, no one else. Bad choice sure but it was HIS choice. Now he is either going to live or die by that choice. Responsibility is a B***.

Grim.

reply to post by DAVID64


That isn't using your firearm in a self-defence situation, it's using it to dissuade someone from doing anything silly or reckless. If someone is attacked and they have to fire their gun to end the attack is what I'm talking about, and if people can get away with not reporting such incidents, there's something wrong with your system.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Having guns doesn't guarantee making anywhere a safer place, it just makes some criminals even more ruthless.

Where have I heard that before?

Oh, that’s right!

reply to post by DAVID64

Late one night, he walked to a local store to get cigarettes. 2 guys in the store were watching him and quietly talking to each other and seem to be waiting for him to leave. When he did leave, they followed. As he was walking, he "accidentally" brushed aside his shirt tail, exposing his weapon. The men immediately switched directions and walked away. There was no confrontation and he didn't need to pull his weapon, defusing a situation before it even started. What would he have reported to the police? That 2 men walked out of a store the same time as him? There are estimates, because not everyone runs to the police for every little thing.

While I do agree with your point, I must point out that what your “friend” did is against the law. The number one condition of having a CONCEALED carry license is that it must REMAIN CONCEALED at all times. You can’t flip up your coat tail and flash your gun. Doing things like that can quickly turn a person from law abiding CHL holder to convicted felon prohibited from owning a firearm.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. According to the LAW (at least in my state) he should have done everything in his power to avoid a confrontation and only brandished his weapon when it was time to shoot…period. That is the spirit of the law for a reason. We don’t need people running around flashing pistols as a “deterrent”.

reply to post by seabag


Of all the things presidents manage to have plausible deniability of, it's funny how the president's finger-prints are so easily found all over this. It's almost as if some crafty swine suckered him into getting involved and then forget the old plausible deniability trick.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by DAVID64

 

Late one night, he walked to a local store to get cigarettes. 2 guys in the store were watching him and quietly talking to each other and seem to be waiting for him to leave. When he did leave, they followed. As he was walking, he "accidentally" brushed aside his shirt tail, exposing his weapon. The men immediately switched directions and walked away. There was no confrontation and he didn't need to pull his weapon, defusing a situation before it even started. What would he have reported to the police? That 2 men walked out of a store the same time as him? There are estimates, because not everyone runs to the police for every little thing.

While I do agree with your point, I must point out that what your “friend” did is against the law. The number one condition of having a CONCEALED carry license is that it must REMAIN CONCEALED at all times. You can’t flip up your coat tail and flash your gun. Doing things like that can quickly turn a person from law abiding CHL holder to convicted felon prohibited from owning a firearm.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. According to the LAW (at least in my state) he should have done everything in his power to avoid a confrontation and only brandished his weapon when it was time to shoot…period. That is the spirit of the law for a reason. We don’t need people running around flashing pistols as a “deterrent”.

Depends on the state. You can OC and CCW in many states and he would not have been in trouble for this here.

I disagree with the concept that you must draw only when it is time to shoot. That is not in any of the CCW laws. What you need to do is to be able to articulate reasonable concern of immediate harm. Whereas you must be prepared to shoot, you don't have to shoot. Someone says they are going to kill you and pulls out a knife but is still across a busy highway, you can still articulate reason to pull your weapon without him having to be within knifing range.

reply to post by NavyDoc


The time when the line is crossed, for brandishing, as when the person is just trying to show force to someone, by withdrawing the firearm from the holster.

Plus, like what you stated, being able to articulate that you were in fear for your safety and health.

reply to post by NavyDoc

I disagree with the concept that you must draw only when it is time to shoot. That is not in any of the CCW laws.

That incorrect, friend, and it flies in the face of everything taught. Sorry for the long quote but its all relevant:

A few weeks ago I got a frantic email from a fellow who wanted me to be an expert witness in a gun related case. He included his lawyer’s phone number, so I gave the lawyer a call to see what happened.

Here’s what he told me: His client lives in an apartment building with underground parking and assigned spaces. For one reason or another, his client decided to park in another person’s spot (We’ll call him Mr. T.). Well, Mr. T. was not a happy camper about this, so he left a nasty note on the client’s windshield along the lines of “never park in my spot again or bad things will happen.”

The client did not appreciate the note so he wrote an even “friendlier” note and taped it to the wall on Mr. T’s spot. To make a long story short, these two very mature adults went back and forth trading nasty notes with each other… until one day, the client caught Mr. T. in the parking garage writing one of these notes.

A verbal argument ensued…

And the client said he turned his back to Mr. T. to read a note which had been taped on the parking garage wall. And that as he was reading the note, he thought he saw Mr. T. raise his hand over his head as if he was going to hit the client in the back of the head. At that moment, the client drew his firearm as he turned around and told Mr. T. to back off. (Mr. T. then called the police and the client was charged with brandishing.)

After this long story, the lawyer asked me if I would be an expert witness and I said “sure I’ll do it, but you’re not going to like what I have to say”. The reason being, the client should not have drawn his gun, because this was not a deadly force situation.

You see, even though I’m not a lawyer myself (thank goodness) you have to remember that in order to draw your gun you must be in immediate fear for your life. You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man.

www.usacarry.com...

What you need to do is to be able to articulate reasonable concern of immediate harm. Whereas you must be prepared to shoot, you don't have to shoot. Someone says they are going to kill you and pulls out a knife but is still across a busy highway, you can still articulate reason to pull your weapon without him having to be within knifing range.

I never said you HAVE to shoot once it’s out. Obviously if you pull it out to shoot and the person instantly runs away before you pull the trigger then you would not shoot. I’m just saying that you should NEVER pull it out unless you’re going to use it immediately and you should NEVER flash it as a deterrent. That would be irresponsible.

reply to post by NavyDoc

What you need to do is to be able to articulate reasonable concern of immediate harm. Whereas you must be prepared to shoot, you don't have to shoot. Someone says they are going to kill you and pulls out a knife but is still across a busy highway, you can still articulate reason to pull your weapon without him having to be within knifing range.

You are correct in this regard. Texas law does give you the legal right to NOT shoot once your gun is out.

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

www.txdps.state.tx.us...

You cannot show your weapon unless your reason for pulling it out in the first place is a justified use of deadly force; meaning you’d better have been justified in killing someone if you pulled it. Whether you do shoot or not doesn’t matter but the same criteria must be met in order to brandish it.

Simply put: The THREAT of force (brandishing) is only justified when the USE of dealy force is justified

reply to post by seabag

DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

That's from the Texas statutes. Backs up up the idea that intimidation by firearm isn't allowed.

reply to post by seabag


No offense Seabag, but it sounds like you are being a bit partial to strictly interpreting the CC law because you have a CC license yourself.

Many people don't. And I'm glad I live in a state where you can just carry it if you want. No problem. No CC license is needed if you are out in public and want to be armed. Just make sure that people can see it.

You said that criminals are going to sneak up and shoot the guy with the gun first. But just knowing that someone in the vicinity is armed is usually enough to deter alot of criminal acts from ever even taking place. Most criminals will not commit crime in the presence of a cop. Do you think it is simply because he's a cop? Or maybe because the crook knows the cop is going to be armed and trained with a firearm?

Ever notice how these mass shooters pick schools and churches and malls and the like? Becasue they know there is nobody there that is armed.

Just my two cents anyways.

I know this was to someone else, but

No offense Seabag, but it sounds like you are being a bit partial to strictly interpreting the CC law because you have a CC license yourself.

How else is the law to be interpreted? We can't just ignore the part we feel should be different or decide certain people deserve a different interpretation then every one else.

Ok, so we've got a teen out at 2am (past legal curfew for one of his age, no doubt), who jumped over a locked gate to end up in this guy's private yard....

And.....

The teen had a few burglary charges against him, though his family told the paper that none of those had ever been armed robberies.

The homeowner sees him for the prowler he is, and shoots him.

Louisiana law:

The law also stated homicide was justifiable in similar cases: when committed in self-defense by one who "reasonably believes" he is in danger of great bodily harm or death; to prevent a forcible felony; and to prevent trespass on private property.

And to prevent trespass on private property....

Case closed...the homeowner walks. End of debate. He should have never even been charged.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that Coulter remains in critical condition.

According to the arrest warrant, Landry shot the teen once in the head. The buildings inspector for the Historic District Landmarks Commission was booked on second degree murder charges

So, the kid's still alive, but he gets booked for murder??? Is this police department run by morons? Louisiana law clearly states:

Second degree murder is the killing of a human being

Officer Deet Da Deet, reporting for duty sir....

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Do you gun owners really think that is a justifiable reason for shooting somebody in the head who isn't actually threatening you at the point you are pulling the trigger?

If they are on my property, bordered by a fence (meaning they climbed it), at 2am....yes, I certainly think it is justifiable to pull the trigger. They aren't there to bring me cookies.

Doesn't look like trespass alone is a reason for deadly force in the state.

§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.

www.legis.state.la.us...

LRS 14:19
§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

lsp.org...

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Are criminals a separate species for which normal rules don't apply? Since when did the death penalty for attempted theft become acceptable?

Since LA, TX, FL, and countless other states PASSED THE LAWS....

How is the homeowner supposed to know an intruder isn't there to rape his wife, kidnap his kid, or just shoot them so he can then steal what he likes? He doesn't, but he does know that someone bypassed his 8' fence and ignored the dog to try and get in...so how is he supposed to react?

Look, you sneak around in someone's yard, at night, bypassing a fence to do it, in these states, and you're pretty much forfeiting your life.