This is not about shooting to protect property, as a few have said, it is about shooting to protect one's life and the lives of one's family.
Here is an overview of
Louisiana's Castle Doctrine (frankly, BC1, I don't give a good rip about what SC law has to say about this one; this shooting didn't take place in SC):
Castle Doctrine
"Louisiana’s castle law permits the use of physical force to protect one’s self and property from 'forcible crimes' and the use of deadly force
in situations where circumstances are 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.' The statute has a 'stand your ground' clause in that it does not require victims to retreat before using force,
whether they’re inside their home or any other place they have a right to be," emphasis added.
Louisiana Gun Rights - An Overview of Gun Laws in Louisiana
So what do we have here?
A professional thief (his brother's words) posts a sentry outside of a fenced property at around 1:40 or so in the AM (he is in violation of New Orleans' curfew ordinance, BTW) and then climbs over the fence (this was taped by a neighbor's security system).
The homeowner's dog begins barking.
The homeowner goes outside to see what is causing his dog to bark at 1:45 in the morning.
In one photo, there is what appears to be a single soffit-mounted light near the rear gate where the vehicle was located and it appears to be on in the photo, so we know that there was probably SOME lighting available (which should provide at least SOME deterrence to a would-be bad guy).
The vehicle was parked near the rear door of the house.
At this point, we don't know if the homeowner looked out a window to see what was causing his dog to bark or not. Even if he did, there is no guarantee that he would have seen what was causing the dog to bark.
He is armed. So am I.
He sees a person who has no legal right to be on his property within feet of his rear door, which also happens to be near his vehicle. Does he know how old this person is? I sincerely doubt it. And as I know from my own area, kids that young have been involved in shootings, stabbings, and other acts of physical violence on a fairly regular basis.
Now, the Louisiana law says that the use of deadly force is allowed "in situations
where circumstances are sufficient 'to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person..."
Let's think this through.
A reasonable person hears his dog barking. Is his first thought to call the police? No. His first thought is to see what is causing the ruckus. He probably looks out the window, sees nothing, then goes outside to investigate further, tell his dog to be quiet. We have probably all been in similar situations many times ourselves.
On the off chance that the ruckus
may be caused by the presence of a person, the reasonable person takes his firearm with him. Most of us here carry, and I think we would all agree that having one's firearm in this situation, however innocuous it may actually turn out to be, is a reasonable thing to do.
Upon investigation, the reasonable person finds a bad guy within feet of the rear door of his house, which also
happens to be near his vehicle. At this point, does the reasonable person know whether the bad guy is going after his back door or his vehicle? No. Even if the bad guy IS targeting the vehicle initially, there is no way of knowing if he will try to access the house next. Given today's criminals, it is reasonable to assume the worst and hope to be proven wrong.
The reasonable person observes that the bad guy is there despite the barking of the dog, the presence of a soffit-mounted light, and, now, the presence of the reasonable person.
A reasonable person is not stopping to think at this juncture about the age of the bad guy. Why? Because the reasonable person knows that bad guys of all ages have committed violent crimes, and he now knows that the bad guy has seen him. To retreat into his home now may be to bring danger directly into his house, where his pregnant wife and young daughter are sleeping.
Having been confronted in his own fenced yard at 1:45 AM, the reasonable person is now in fear of what such a person will do to him and his family.
The circumstances are sufficient to excite fear.
The reasonable person observes that the bad guy, at this point,
is making no effort to flee the yard, despite the presence of the reasonable person.
The reasonable person, now fearful for his life and the lives of his family given the actions of the bad guy to this point, has drawn his firearm.
Instead of fleeing, the bad guy makes a motion that can be interpreted by a reasonable person as reaching for a weapon of some sort - not raising his hands in surrender or turning around to flee.
Now, I ask you, does the reasonable person at this juncture wait to see what kind of weapon the bad guy will produce, giving the bad guy the opportunity to get off the first shot or charge him with a knife?
THAT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.
Now, the older brother is angry that his professional thief kid brother has been shot. He is angry because justice has not been done.
He's right - but not for the reasons he would like everyone to believe.
If justice had been done, his professional thief brother would have had his butt thrown in jail long before this incident took place, or the older brother and his mother would have turned him over to the courts themselves when it became obvious that his criminal activities could not be curbed. So once again we find ourselves faced with a situation in which the family is attempting to push responsibility for their own failures onto someone else - and that is where the similarity to the Zimmerman case stops.
PS -- I wonder where the sentry disappeared to?
