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.
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).
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.