The NEXT Zimmerman: 'White Caucasian' shoots 14y/o black breaking in his home

[Lebowski]

If a thief steals any of my vehicles and trashes them I am screwed.

Not that I am disagreeing with you, buy in that specific example, how would you be screwed? I would assume insurance policies would cover the cost of damages if a car is stolen and trashed? Now, stealing your wallet or wife's purse and stealing your identity would be a real PITA to clear up, but recovering from the loss of a stolen vehicle wouldn't be that difficult.

Personally, I would have called 911 and reported the fence hopper immediately. Had he came towards my home directly or entered it, then well, do what you must. For all we know, the kid himself was running through a neighbourhood trying to hide from some thugs and was just going to duck behind the fence for a bit. Or maybe he was up to no good and was going to try to break into a house. We don't know.

I've got no remorse for Trayvon, as the facts rolled in, it was clear who the initial attacker was and that Zimmerman likely feared for his life and could not escape harm. In this case though I feel like the home owner may have 'jumped the gun' a little too early.

 

[PistolBob]

Nothing good happens at 2AM.

 

[Lebowski]

Nothing good happens at 2AM.

I work 3rd shift from home (remote IT position), I usually don't even wake up until 5PM or so. Anyhow, it's not uncommon that I may head out of my house and walk down to the store at 2AM. I'll walk through dark residential neighbourhoods to get to the gas station to buy a pack of smokes and a coffee, but I sure as hell won't be cutting through yards. Truth is, I probably look sketchy too. Only difference is I always walk in the road (no sidewalks)

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK. I didn't read the whole article in the OP. That said, in what I did read, the main problem I saw was that the author mistakenly identified who was the attacker and who was the victim. Clearly, the man whose home and family were approached was the victim of a trespass at a bare minimum... unless perhaps the prosecution wishes to postulate that the man's home somehow moved itself into the youngster's path and forced him to be within the grounds thereof.
I think it also is telling that the neighbor who saw the kids on the bikes at 0144 hrs did not call police "for fear of profiling" (paraquote)... That should have been the absolute last thing on his/her mind.

Finally, in post #19, Jaredjosh said "There isn't enough facts as of yet for me decide if the homeowner did the right thing or not. Not that it is for me to decide anyways. Now with the info we have so far it seems that the kid was just in his yard and not in his house. Was the kid armed?

I will say this, nothing I own is worth any ones life. And I mean nothing. If he shot the kid to merely protect his property shame on him. If he did it to protect his own life or a family members life that is understandable."

Jaredjosh, I am not "calling you out" to say this, but I would suggest that you consider that even if the assailant had no intention of killing, but instead, intended only to rob and might have seen the (female) homeowner as a target of opportunity, I don't know that this would have been defense of life, per se. The fact is that we simply don't know what an unknown, "uninvited guest" (and you may consider that term right up there with undocumented alien and/or unlicensed pharmacist) will do when s/he is willing to cross the clear line created when one builds a wall or fence.

If the facts of the case are as they appear right now, the kid just made a very adult decision, and he paid for it in a very adult way. Sure, there are those among society who are bloodthirsty and want the opportunity to shoot someone... But the prevalence of that group among our group is extremely small, and had the presumed sneak-thief (or worse) not crossed into someone's yard and approached his house.... it's not like the homeowner was standing out at his fence, lying in wait and looking for an excuse to shoot a kid riding by on his bike, y'know?

I guess this can best be summed up as advice to the next sneak-thief. It's often quoted here: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This one's "prize" was a chunk of lead between his ears and a hell of a hospital bill that he'll likely never pay.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dusterboy49]

My stuff is worth more to me than some douchebag thiefs idea that he is entitled to my stuff. A thief can cripple your life if he steals the right things from you. Think about that for a minute. If a thief steals any of my vehicles and trashes them I am screwed.

Exactly my thought. Some people don't recognize the fact that some personal property can be linked to a persons lively hood.
Also some cannot afford to replace stolen property (under insured, no insurance).
What is a 14 yr. old doing out at 2:00 a.m., trespassing on someone else property?

 

[gunsisgood]

I realize Most INGOers were PERFECT little angles when they were teenagers, I was not.
My friends and I played some pretty stupid games, a couple times the prize was good old rock salt fired from a 12 gauge. It worked VERY well and most of us decided on a different path.

 

[cobber]

Exactly my thought. Some people don't recognize the fact that some personal property can be linked to a persons lively hood.
Also some cannot afford to replace stolen property (under insured, no insurance).
What is a 14 yr. old doing out at 2:00 a.m., trespassing on someone else property?

Wait until the juvenile's record is examined. And his accomplice, er companion. That may give us a little more insight.


Has the kindergarten class picture made the rounds yet?


And wait for the media to start in on the "epidemic" of white folks shooting unarmed black kids (pay NO attention to Chicago please).

 

[femurphy77]

I realize Most INGOers were PERFECT little angles when they were teenagers, I was not.
My friends and I played some pretty stupid games, a couple times the prize was good old rock salt fired from a 12 gauge. It worked VERY well and most of us decided on a different path.

I'll bet you were a cute angle yourself, you're just being modest!!

 

[LPMan59]

Nothing good happens at 2AM.

lol fail.

some of the best, er.....adult time has occurred at 2am or later.

 

[DragonGunner]

He was 14....so only pictures on news that we will see is when he was 6 or 7.

He was going through the gated community....had jumped the security fence for a short cut to his house.

He was out late to get a loli pop for little brother.


With all that said, the guy shot him in the head.....that could be looked at in different ways.

Don't know the self defense laws in that state.


My Dad back in the day would of used a shotgun and gave him a warning shot to the azz........inside the house or breaking into it, different story.

 

[ryknoll3]

I'll bet you were a cute angle yourself, you're just being modest!!

I see what you did there.....

 

[long coat]

Not that I am disagreeing with you, buy in that specific example, how would you be screwed? I would assume insurance policies would cover the cost of damages if a car is stolen and trashed?

Only if you have full coverage, I don't have it on all my trucks.

 

[Shadow8088]

Hell, when I was a kid we used to go pool hopping all the time... The homeowner jumped the gun (sorry for the pun)... According to the story, which we haven't heard all of, the kid climbed his fence... If that was grounds for shooting someone, I'd be dead several hundred times over... This isn't rural Texas where the nearest lawman is 3 hours away from your ranch... You dial 911, you watch, and if they try to do more than walk through/around your yard you yell and holler... You get to defend yourself, not go for the pre-emptive strike.. They try to enter your home, all bets are off...

 

[melensdad]

The fact that the homeowner went OUTSIDE may prove to be problematic for him and may justify SOME charge against him.

Artical 236. Fathers and mothers may justify themselves in an action begun against them for assault and battery, if they have acted in the defense of the persons of their children.
§21. Aggressor cannot claim self defense
A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.
§20. Justifiable homicide
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. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4) 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. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.​

 

[Que]

What we have here is a criminal or stupid joy seeker who happens to be Black and a home owner/defender who happens to be White.

The kid had no reason to be in that yard, whatsoever and the homeowner MAY not have had a right to protect his property and possibly his life and family. I see a real problem here and the skin color of the individuals is not it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Last time I looked average 911 response was 23 minutes, emphasis on average. New Orleans, where the police cars are emblazoned with "NO PD".

Here's a question: homeowner stays inside, calls 911. PD responds, confronts trespasser. Trespasser reaches for waistband, officer responds with deadly force. What is the difference?

 

[cobber]

Louisiana Revised Statutes (L.R.S.)
Title 14. Criminal Law
§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.

But if death results, apparently you MUST have been within the residence/POB/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.

So it's okay to shoot trespassers as long as you don't kill them, but if you're going to kill them, be sure to stay in the doorway, even if they only just crossed the property line.

Louisiana needs to harmonize those statutes...

 

[Shadow8088]

Last time I looked average 911 response was 23 minutes, emphasis on average. New Orleans, where the police cars are emblazoned with "NO PD".

Here's a question: homeowner stays inside, calls 911. PD responds, confronts trespasser. Trespasser reaches for waistband, officer responds with deadly force. What is the difference?

Come on.. this ain't your first rodeo... you know good and well that if the cops did it they'd be cleared of any wrongdoing...

 

[Bowman78]

It's ok for officers to respond with such force and to do so on someone else's property but in no way should a homeowner confront a trespasser on their property. Just sit back and call the 5-0 and wait.. Purple implied!!! Ever wonder why police response time is so long??? Trivial calls to dispatch!!! Calls that can be handled w/o police involvement.. I see someone in my yard at 2am lights come on and I come out gun in hand.. No 911 unless perceived to be a threat..

 

[Pitmaster]

The fact that the homeowner went OUTSIDE may prove to be problematic for him and may justify SOME charge against him.

Grabbing a gun to go outside and check out what is happening is prudent. I've done it and will continue to do it. If someone is there, I would definitely do something to let them know I was there. Probably by saying what are you doing, can I help you, or get the hell out of here. But, if they continued forward, responded threateningly, or didn't answer all bets are off. I probably wouldn't shoot immediately if the latter response is in play, but the alert level would go up. The other responses...shooting is at the top of the list.

On another note, the homeowner did make a good shot. The threat stopped.