Car Owner Fatally Shoots Teen During Alleged Robbery Attempt (New Orleans)

WWL-TV ^ | August 27, 2002

[Bogey78O]

“He didn't have no right to kill him,” said Wanda Munoz, the victim’s mother.

The spin has already begun. The correct unspun snetence should read:

“He didn't have no right to kill him,” said Wanda Munoz, the thief’s mother.

The guy is a thief. Not a victim.

[Fintan]

Oh, probably because the police would have shown up 10 minutes late, his car would have been destroyed and the perps wouldn't have been caught.

Not to mention that Sean Minor would be room temperature by now.

[Conservative til I die]

“He didn't have no right to kill him,” said Wanda Munoz, the victim’s mother. “If he was doing what they said he was doing, he should have just called the police and reported it. Why kill him."

Hey lady, just wanted to let you know I'm glad your bastard son is dead. :)

[Charles Martel]

I will only use a gun in a circumstance where my life, or the life of a loved one, is in immediate peril. This is my choice, however. The law in many areas does allow for the protection of property. And as the DA mentioned, jury's are sympathetic to the property owner, so he may well be acquitted for it.

During the time that I resided in New Orleans, three of my cars were stolen in a five-year period. Drove it to school, stolen. Drove it to the mall, stolen. Woke up one Saturday morning and decided to wash the car - and walked out into an empty carport, wondering why I was carrying a bucket and sponge. Stolen from my house. The first time, it was before all the security gadgets appeared on the market. The other two times, the thieves defeated car alarms and steering wheel locks. That last one really made me livid... my wife was afraid I was going to go hunting for car thieves. It sounded like a fine idea at the time, too.

You can bet that the jury pool will be brimming full of people who have had similar experiences. I'll be surprised if they convict the guy. As far as civil suits, yes, Mr. Minor might have trouble there. Too bad he didn't close in on the perps before opening fire. Had that been the case, the D.A. would've probably deemed the shooting as justified under Louisiana's "Shoot the Carjacker" law. Always remember - fix bayonets and charge, sniping car thieves from the balcony is *not* encouraged.

[Conservative til I die]

You're quite right. It's a matter of what value you place on a human life over property. I wonder if some these people would be saying the same thing if the dead kid were their own son?

Actually, I'd say my son deserved it as well. If you're gonna be a criminal and play the game, you have to be ready to pay.

[Bogey78O]

One question.

Where's the criminals friend and why hasn't been arrested yet? You think he'd have been inentified to the cops during the investigation?

[gilor]

But no one, not in immediate fear of death or great bodily injury, can use lethal force in defense of property.

So if some scumbag breaks into my house and doesn't seem to be armed, and I find him in my daughter's bedroom, I don't have the right to spray his f****** brains all over the wall?

WRONG!

[Cobra Scott]

"Hey lady, just wanted to let you know I'm glad your bastard son is dead. :) "

I'm sure you are not alone....;)

[Leisler]

It is a problem if you and your friends are all employed in the public sector security business. No crime, no work.

[sushiman]

IF warning shots were fired and the perps continued to steal his car he had every right to shoot them , and from a safe distance . Going down to confront them might have gotten HIM killed .

[Leisler]

Fishermen, construction workers, miners, loggers and a host of others get killed, maimed or crippled working to buy things. When these things get stolen, they have to further expose themselves to purchase anew. Property is time off a persons life that they never get back. When you steal, you rob not only the thing, but the hours, days, weeks and months a persons gave up to earn that thing. In effect, you send a good person back to the labor camps.

The punk didn't steal because his wife and kids were starving and there were no jobs and this was it or him and his. He stole because he valued his life for the few hundred dollars the vehicle was worth. He was the moral and ethical actor. He priced himself, bet himself and lost.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Maybe we could all send her 'sympathy' cards ;0)

[AStack75]

[SUSSA]

"The problem comes in cause many citizens will tell you that you have a right to protect your property and if they get to a jury they'll say they would do the same thing," said Robert Jenkins, a local defense attorney.

This is not a problem. This is what a jury is supposed to do. It is their duty to judge the facts, the law and if the law is being applied properly in each specific case. If jurors are doing that in New Orleans they are to be commended.

I hope this guy hangs tough and a jury lets him off.

[gilor]

He stole because he valued his life for the few hundred dollars the vehicle was worth. He was the moral and ethical actor. He priced himself, bet himself and lost.

Excellent!

[SUSSA]

Standing off at a safe distance and shooting a thief who poses no immediate threat to your person or to anyone else is NOT justifiable homicide.

You live in the wrong state. It is justifiable in Texas. It generally doesn't even make it to a grand jury.

[SUSSA]

Warning shots...HELL! The first warning shot should be to the center of mass followed by a shot to the head. Warning shots are dangerous.

[gilor]

Warning shots are dangerous.

Flash Suppression BUMP!