|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
|Locked on 07/27/2013 10:34:57 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:|
Skip to comments.Unarmed teen shot inside homeowner's fenced yard, but not breaking into home, NOPD warrant says
Posted on 07/27/2013 9:03:05 AM PDT by Sharkfish
A 14-year-old boy remained in critical condition Friday after being shot in the head by a homeowner who said he thought the teen was trying to break into his house. But police said the teen was unarmed and did not pose an "imminent threat" when he was shot and have charged the owner with attempted second-degree murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
was the perpetrator black? Was the homeowner a white Hispanic?
If the boy is black and the homeowner not black, this could be another Trayvon Martin case. A key difference is that the boy was up to no good, whereas the liberal view of Trayvon Martin is that he was just minding his own business walking home. They can’t say that in this case. But the liberals and race baiters will say that even though the boy should not have been at this guy’s house, that it was excessive force.
Now, if the homeowner was black and the boy is black, then this story will disappear from the media. It will only stay alive if the boy is black and the homeowner is another race or ethnicity.
Was he drinking a bottle of iced tea flavored with Guaifenesin?
Sounds very familiar:
Familiar to what?
I think a key difference could be to the other side. Martin had jumped and was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. This kid, along with being three years younger didn’t show that he was an imminent threat from which the shooter couldn’t retreat.
Umm, professional thief here. 2am out in the yard of the homeowner. No way I’d convict.
“Familiar to what?”
The other thread on the subject?
14 years old?
Hey, mom, where are your parenting skills?
You left out the real possibility that the homeowner is a White Black man.
You know, someone with skin like the late Michael Jackson.
“did not pose an ‘imminent threat’ when he was shot”
Easy to say after the fact.
However, at the time the homeowner was defending hearth and home how was he supposed to know that the perp was unarmed and not an imminent threat? If someone’s trespassing upon one’s property they certainly don’t have your best interest at heart, and why does the homeowner have to second-guess himself in whether to use a gun in protecting home and family against a threat?
Sorry. Missed previous thread
Try a search.
“”He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure,” David Coulter said. “But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he’ll ever pick up a gun, he’ll be your friend first.”
I guess she had some parenting skills. Not many, but some.
If a trespasser is on the property at 2 am the homeowner as a matter of law should be entitled to assume he’s an imminent threat. Cops say that although the teen had a history of burglary arrests he never in the past used a gun. And the homeowner was supposed to know this?
“the teen’s history of burglary arrests “
his brother says: “He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure”
And for those who didn’t look at the pictures, your stereotypes are correct.
Of course the homeowner is guilty of racial profiling and premeditated murder...he lured the innocent young man into attempting to steal by dangling the rewards of hard work and honesty in his face... how could he be expected to resist...it’s like hunting doves at a bird feeder. (sarc)
The homeowner is guilty of not killing the punk and sticking a throw down, or at least a knife, in the punk’s hand.
Let’s see. Teen w/ prior burglary arrests (but never used a gun before...WOOPIED-F*-DO?!) is shot while INSIDE a fenced/gated property (can’t see how THAT was a ‘mistake’) @ 2AM (where’s the parents??)
I presume he was told to leave? The story doesn’t say. But dude was spooked enough to shoot (this IS New Orleans) from the kid ‘reaching for something’.
Still a good shot..30 feet to head. Love the older brothers comment: “He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure...”
Just another instance of the wrong non-verbal communication from the Amish. A simple “Excuse me” could have diffused the whole situation...or good PARENTING (where the blame lies).
I believe a fence means private property - stay out.
And as silly as that sounds, if little barry bassturd boy needs more distraction from the criminal acts he is perpetrating to destroy America, his strawboss holder will hype this to the max, even sending unJustice dept. monies down NO way to foment more unrest which the regime will exploit by herding black people by their magic thinking.
It has already started. I live in N.O. on the west bank. Local talk show was discussing it. Blacks see it as a white guy killing a black youth. Whites see it as a man protecting his property where he has a child and a pregnant wife. The NOPD has video which shows the youth climbing the fence to gain access to yard. Got a sick feeling the self appointed reverands will be down soon to roil up an already racist group for more contributions to their org’s.
Is that a crime in Louisiana?
Everyone should remember the sad fate of the idiot white do-gooder from Seattle or Portland, who, in the aftermath of Katrina, opened a small medical clinic in New Orleans with her husband. She was shot and killed answering the door in a 2 a.m. attempted robbery. Left behind a toddler.
Never mind, that a simple review of the recent news shows that:
The white Hispanic, Aaron Hernandez, has been charged with murder and already convicted in the court of public opinion for killing a young black man;
An old white guy, John Spooner, was just convicted of murder for shooting a black teen in Milwaukee; and
Now the white man in this article is charged with murder for killing a black teen on his property.
The black agitators will not let facts get in their way. They will continue to scream that the Zimmerman verdict (despite all the evidence in Zimmerman's favor) now means that it's legal for non-black to kill black boys. And Useful Idiots will continue to mindlessly parrot the drivel.
The baby boy had already committed numerous robberies and now he had climbed over a fence to get onto the man’s property. Why do you think he violated the law to enter that man’s fenced yard? He wasn’t going to sit in the yard and have a picnic by himself - he was going to rob that yard or car or house - the owner’s property and could have had a gun to kill those people inside the house.
What did the property owner think at that time: His dog’s bark said there is someone bad there, the man shot one time 30 ft. away from the robber baby boy, and the bullet hit him in the head. Why did the baby boy robber get shot? Because he was trespassing and the homeowner was fearful for his pregnant wife and child.
Moral to stay alive for baby boy robbers: Don’t trespass or you may get shot. Baby boy didn’t think anyone would hurt him so he could rob all he wanted. He was wrong.
My old neighborhood. Glad I left that crime-riddled rat infested hole.
As likely, hey dad, where’s your parenting?
This is why you wait there silently until they get their head and shoulders and at the very least waist into the house before you blast them....
What if the homeowner was following biden’s advice.....
I don’t doubt what he was up to, and I don’t know well enough the LA laws to know if the shooting was within its parameters.
Just pointing out some fundamental differences between this and the Trayvon situation in which Zimmerman IMO was on less reasonably questionable grounds IMO. Putting it simply, the evidence shows that Zimmerman’s life was in immediate danger, Trayvon was in the midst of committing a felony, and Zimmerman wasn’t in any position to be able to retreat.
I have found that stuff to be great for chest congestion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.