- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Grand Jury Takes No Action On Merritt Landry Case
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:00 am to White Roach
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:00 am to White Roach
quote:
About 15 years ago, a guy shot a car burglar in Carrolton or the Riverbend area. Nobody had driveways in the neighborhood, so everyone parked on the street. The guy lived on a corner and his car was parked on the side street. He got up during the night to piss, looked out the bathroom window and some a-hole was stealing his car stereo. The homeowner got his shotgun and fired a .410 slug through the window screen and into the car burglar's back. He ran down the block and bled out.
Homeowner gets arrested and goes to trial (I think for Manslaughter, but I don't remember for sure). Not guilty! Not a hung jury, but not guilty. He shot a guy in the back, from inside his house and the jury gave him a pass.
quote:
(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.
LINK
Unless I missed something when glancing over it, it does not say you have to be in the car while it's being burglarized. Just inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle. Might not be the original intent of the statute, but there you have it.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 2:06 am
0
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:05 am to M1911
The house is kind of L shaped, but I'm not sure where they were in relation to each other and the house.
I don't think Coulter was looking for four leaf clovers and it certainly wasn't his lucky day. He was up to no good, everyone knows that. But someone snooping around your car isn't the same thing as someone breaking down your door.
Legally, Landry may have been within his rights to confront a trespasser and curfew violator (because that's all the kid was at that point), but I bet he wishes he'd shown better judgment that night.
I don't think Coulter was looking for four leaf clovers and it certainly wasn't his lucky day. He was up to no good, everyone knows that. But someone snooping around your car isn't the same thing as someone breaking down your door.
Legally, Landry may have been within his rights to confront a trespasser and curfew violator (because that's all the kid was at that point), but I bet he wishes he'd shown better judgment that night.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:11 am to White Roach
And if he used "better judgment" that night in a different scenario (a rapist/murderer or 20 year old with a gun and intent to burglarize), he and his family could have been seriously harmed or dead.
You don't know the kid's intentions at the time, especially when your family is on the line. So what if he was by the car at that point? Does snooping around a car prevent someone from subsequently going inside? Or taking shots at Landry? Or spraying bullets at the house?
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone brazen enough to hop over your fence and snoop around your property has intentions other than just to trespass and maybe steal something from a car.
Just because he wasn't shooting at Landry's family at that specific time doesn't mean he didn't intend to hurt his family. And I honestly doubt he did intend to hurt his family judging from everything we know now, but how was Landry supposed to know that at that specific time?
LINK
This one is for the justifiable homicide statute. Sounds a little iffy with the to be likely bit, so do any actual OT lawyers want to chime in on this and shine some light on when this applies?
You don't know the kid's intentions at the time, especially when your family is on the line. So what if he was by the car at that point? Does snooping around a car prevent someone from subsequently going inside? Or taking shots at Landry? Or spraying bullets at the house?
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone brazen enough to hop over your fence and snoop around your property has intentions other than just to trespass and maybe steal something from a car.
Just because he wasn't shooting at Landry's family at that specific time doesn't mean he didn't intend to hurt his family. And I honestly doubt he did intend to hurt his family judging from everything we know now, but how was Landry supposed to know that at that specific time?
quote:
(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.
LINK
This one is for the justifiable homicide statute. Sounds a little iffy with the to be likely bit, so do any actual OT lawyers want to chime in on this and shine some light on when this applies?
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 2:38 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:22 am to White Roach
quote:
The house is kind of L shaped, but I'm not sure where they were in relation to each other and the house.
It is. You have the front of the house and a driveway going down the side and at the end of the driveway the house juts out in the form of an L, where there is also another door. We're talking a single-story, shotgun style house; the back "bottom of the L" for lack of words was probably an addition and may have very well been the master bedroom. This is where Coulter was, the car was also pulled up close to this side door.
Merritt had gone out of the front and came around turned the corner by the driveway and saw Coulter. If he believed that Coulter intended to enter the house at that door he is in his legal right to shoot.
quote:
Legally, Landry may have been within his rights to confront a trespasser and curfew violator (because that's all the kid was at that point)
The crimes already committed are irrelevant. If he had reason to believe Coulter was in the process of entering, or had forcibly entered the house (and possibly the vehicle) then it's justifiable.
quote:
but I bet he wishes he'd shown better judgment that night.
I'll double that and bet you he doesn't regret defending his family and unborn child and would do it the same way over again if he had to.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 2:32 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:26 am to M1911
Spraying bullets at the house? Seriously?
N.O. has more than it's share of crime problems, but people randomly spraying bullets at houses isn't one of them. When some sprays a house with bullets around here, it's typically because the guy sitting on the front stoop infringed on the shooter's drug trade.
If Landry had stayed in his house and called 911, he would have probably been in a better position to protect his family. And if Coulter had actually tried to break in the house, Landry could have shot him full of holes and been perfectly justified in doing so. But instead, he went outside looking for a fight and as a result, his life has been in turmoil for the past 7 or 8 months and there's no end in sight.
N.O. has more than it's share of crime problems, but people randomly spraying bullets at houses isn't one of them. When some sprays a house with bullets around here, it's typically because the guy sitting on the front stoop infringed on the shooter's drug trade.
If Landry had stayed in his house and called 911, he would have probably been in a better position to protect his family. And if Coulter had actually tried to break in the house, Landry could have shot him full of holes and been perfectly justified in doing so. But instead, he went outside looking for a fight and as a result, his life has been in turmoil for the past 7 or 8 months and there's no end in sight.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:34 am to White Roach
quote:
If Landry had stayed in his house and called 911, he would have probably been in a better position to protect his family. And if Coulter had actually tried to break in the house, Landry could have shot him full of holes and been perfectly justified in doing so. But instead, he went outside looking for a fight and as a result, his life has been in turmoil for the past 7 or 8 months and there's no end in sight.
How do you know he went looking for a fight? Maybe when the dog barked, at the front of the house most likely, considering that's where the loud arse iron gate the kid jumped was; that's where he went. He looked out, didn't see anything, and went outside to investigate. He went out, turned the corner to see the same guy he had seen earlier in the day casing his house about to break in through the back door. What if that door led directly into the room where his pregnant wife was? How would you react?
RS 14:19
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.
People will bring up:
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 force or violence 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 the force or violence 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 force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
but it is irrelevant because A & B are independent of each other. The qualifications of B do not need to be met for A to be applicable.
RS 14:18
(7) When the offender's conduct is in defense of persons or of property under any of the circumstances described in Articles 19 through 22.
Also:
"Property" and "Person" defined for use under Article 14:
(7) "Person" includes a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
(8) "Property" refers to both public and private property, movable and immovable, and corporeal and incorporeal property.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 2:52 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:35 am to White Roach
It has happened plenty of times and it will happen again.
People get mistaken for people all the time, maybe they thought he was someone stepping on their trade. It happens.
I mean, a dude randomly shot up an elementary school over a year ago.
And yeah, great idea. Put his family in the middle of a gun fight (if he would have had a gun).
Looking for a fight... lol get real dude. Do you really think he was just waiting for the day someone decided to step on his front lawn so he could test out his new hardware? Hell, maybe he was, but that's certainly a stretch. Is it really so hard to believe you can defend your family from a few feet outside your home in your own fenced in yard?
If you go outside like he did, maybe you can catch them by surprise. You do want every possible advantage within the law when defending your family.
You pretty much forfeit your right to live when you put a man's family in danger, whether you like it or not.
People get mistaken for people all the time, maybe they thought he was someone stepping on their trade. It happens.
I mean, a dude randomly shot up an elementary school over a year ago.
And yeah, great idea. Put his family in the middle of a gun fight (if he would have had a gun).
Looking for a fight... lol get real dude. Do you really think he was just waiting for the day someone decided to step on his front lawn so he could test out his new hardware? Hell, maybe he was, but that's certainly a stretch. Is it really so hard to believe you can defend your family from a few feet outside your home in your own fenced in yard?
If you go outside like he did, maybe you can catch them by surprise. You do want every possible advantage within the law when defending your family.
You pretty much forfeit your right to live when you put a man's family in danger, whether you like it or not.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:36 am to White Roach
I'm sorry, but if that kid...or anyone else...went inside a property surrounded by a fence with a locked gate at 2 AM. he deserves to get shot.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:45 am to Corkfather
If my pregnant wife was on the opposite side of the door, I sure as shite wouldn't be shooting towards it.
I hope it all works out well for your friend, I really do. And as I stated early in the thread, the planet won't miss Coulter running the streets. Nevertheless, I think Landry made a poor choice and he's experiencing the consequences of his actions. I hope he doesn't end up in jail.
I hope it all works out well for your friend, I really do. And as I stated early in the thread, the planet won't miss Coulter running the streets. Nevertheless, I think Landry made a poor choice and he's experiencing the consequences of his actions. I hope he doesn't end up in jail.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:46 am to White Roach
How do you know she was on the opposite side of the door?
Maybe I missed something, but I would imagine he knew where his wife was and wasn't shooting in that direction.
Maybe I missed something, but I would imagine he knew where his wife was and wasn't shooting in that direction.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:49 am to M1911
Read Corkfather's 2:34 post.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:53 am to White Roach
You're stretching so hard for an argument, but that's on you.
I on the other hand would've reacted the same way. That fence isn't some rinky dinky fence that you accidentally stepped over into his lawn. It required him to JUMP over. At 2 AM someone hopping over a fence is looking to perform a good Samaritan act right?
The kid was looking for trouble, his history says it all. Multiple burglaries and arrests iirc. If people can do a crime towards someone else, they are a threat to the person they're committing the crime against. Sorry that he's brain dead, but he had it coming.
I on the other hand would've reacted the same way. That fence isn't some rinky dinky fence that you accidentally stepped over into his lawn. It required him to JUMP over. At 2 AM someone hopping over a fence is looking to perform a good Samaritan act right?
The kid was looking for trouble, his history says it all. Multiple burglaries and arrests iirc. If people can do a crime towards someone else, they are a threat to the person they're committing the crime against. Sorry that he's brain dead, but he had it coming.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 2:54 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:54 am to M1911
quote:
How do you know she was on the opposite side of the door?
I don't know the layout of the house, I was making a hypothetical.
I see the law the same as you though in respect to the car being included. If that's the case then it doesn't matter whether or not he was going for the house or the car, or if someone was in it or not. It is considered property.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 2:55 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 3:09 am to htran90
Not looking for an argument, just voicing my opinion.
The kid jumped a 4' or 5' tall locked gate at 1:30 or 2:00a.m. Everyone knows he was up to no good. After hearing about his arrest record, everyone agrees that he was well on his way to a life of crime. frick him. I don't feel sorry for him at all.
My point is that if Landry was absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt legally justified in shooting this character, he would have never been arrested. If he was kinda sorta justified, the Grand Jury would have returned a No True Bill. But neither of those things happened. I think he made a bad decision in shooting Coulter. That's my opinion, based on what I know about this case.
The kid jumped a 4' or 5' tall locked gate at 1:30 or 2:00a.m. Everyone knows he was up to no good. After hearing about his arrest record, everyone agrees that he was well on his way to a life of crime. frick him. I don't feel sorry for him at all.
My point is that if Landry was absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt legally justified in shooting this character, he would have never been arrested. If he was kinda sorta justified, the Grand Jury would have returned a No True Bill. But neither of those things happened. I think he made a bad decision in shooting Coulter. That's my opinion, based on what I know about this case.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 3:48 am
Page 12 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News