Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Chester32141 on July 27, 2013, 06:15:20 PM
-
Louisiana Self Defense Case ...
Merritt Landry, a 33-year-old “white caucasian” shot the victim, a 14-year-old black boy, in the head.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-redux-the-breaking-louisiana-self-defense-case-of-merritt-landry/#comments
Hope this takes the heat off of GZ ... Black kid's older brother said he was a professional thief .... :facepalm:
-
Waiting for the presidential news conference.
Remember that NSA spying, Bhenghazi, Fast &Furry, IRS=phony scandals to distract Washington
Local self defense case with zero national or international implications? The greatest problem of our day.
-
2 AM and the kid had to scale a fence to get where he was?
I doubt this will hit the big time. It's harder to flip into "mean white person shoots innocent little black kid".
-
butbutbut he was a sweet baby! Mean ol' whitey didn't have to shoot my baby, he never did no harm.
Years ago mom was on the news with the same story. The deceased son tired to rob a liquor store on a busy day, Christmas eve. Hey Mr. Criminal, VA is a big CCW state. Patron in line took exception.
-
Why is the would-be home invader being referred to as the "victim"?
And why was Landry even suspended from work at all? And why WITHOUT PAY? The incident had nothing to do with his job or his job performance.
-
I give up. Clearly the world has gotten to stupid for me to comprehend it.
-
Why is the would-be home invader being referred to as the "victim"?
That's what happens when the police charge the home-owner with attempted murder. And post-Trayvon, any non-black person firing on a black person can expect to be charged with something.
And why was Landry even suspended from work at all? And why WITHOUT PAY? The incident had nothing to do with his job or his job performance.
I thought that was fairly common for people charged with attempted murder. I guess the employer doesn't want the liability of having a murderer on the job site (even if an alleged murderer), and figure it will be a distraction; not to mention that the shooter is going to be tied up with legal matters for a while. Oh, and they don't want Al Sharpton and company in their face.
-
I thought that was fairly common for people charged with attempted murder. I guess the employer doesn't want the liability of having a murderer on the job site (even if an alleged murderer), and figure it will be a distraction; not to mention that the shooter is going to be tied up with legal matters for a while. Oh, and they don't want Al Sharpton and company in their face.
I can't say that it isn't fairly standard, but I also can't say that it is. I can say that I've never heard of it before, but maybe I haven't been paying attention.
However, I can't support suspending him without pay. If they don't want him around, that's fine ... but the incident wasn't related to his job, and he hasn't been tried or convicted, so there's no legal basis I can think of to start punishing him by suspending his income while he tries to defend his innocence.
As for the "victim" ... once again, we see proof of the adage, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." If parents would raise their darling children to not engage in illegal acts, perhaps said darling children would have a better chance of surviving to adulthood.
-
I can't say that it isn't fairly standard, but I also can't say that it is. I can say that I've never heard of it before, but maybe I haven't been paying attention.
However, I can't support suspending him without pay. If they don't want him around, that's fine ... but the incident wasn't related to his job, and he hasn't been tried or convicted, so there's no legal basis I can think of to start punishing him by suspending his income while he tries to defend his innocence.
I was assuming he worked for a private outfit, but he's apparently a city employee. So I guess I can see the need for a "legal basis." That being said, I do tire of seeing every unpleasant consequence being described as "punishment." This is a most unfortunate way of thinking about things.
-
I was assuming he worked for a private outfit, but he's apparently a city employee. So I guess I can see the need for a "legal basis." That being said, I do tire of seeing every unpleasant consequence being described as "punishment." This is a most unfortunate way of thinking about things.
"Unfortunate"?
Put yourself in his position. If you have done nothing wrong, but acted to protect your family from an apparent home invasion, and suddenly found yourself not only arrested for attempted murder but also suspended from your work and deprived of your income, would you not consider that to be punishment?
I would. Remember, this man has not been convicted of anything, only [over]charged. According to our legal system, then, at this moment he is an innocent man. Yet he has had his income terminated. How is that NOT punishment?
A couple of years ago the chief building inspector of a town near me was arrested and charged with taking bribes to approve substandard work. This was a crime directly related to his work, yet he was suspended WITH pay for the duration until he was finally convicted and sentenced to hard time. Only then was he (and his paycheck) terminated.
-
"Unfortunate"?
Put yourself in his position. If you have done nothing wrong, but acted to protect your family from an apparent home invasion, and suddenly found yourself not only arrested for attempted murder but also suspended from your work and deprived of your income, would you not consider that to be punishment?
IF he's done nothing wrong. I don't think we know, yet, whether he did anything wrong.
I can't say whether his suspension is right or wrong, or even normal. I don't know about that. But I don't automatically say it's punishment, because we don't know that, either. When you call it punishment, you imply certain things about his bosses' motivations - things you don't know enough about to say for certain. You're saying that they sat in judgment of him, and decided he must suffer certain consequences for his wrong-doing. In reality, it could have just been done for practical reasons (or what they thought were practical reasons), without assuming his guilt, and without personal animus. That doesn't make it a good policy, but that would remove it from the realm of punishment.
Look at it this way. You could claim that Zimmerman "punished" Martin for his criminal behavior. After all, he didn't just lose his job, he was killed. But if you say that, you're saying that Zimmerman sat in judgment of Martin, and chose to mete out punishment. You've changed him from a guy who used lethal force when he had no other good options, to a vigilante.
Frankly, I think throwing around the word punishment like that is childish, whiny leftism.
-
He's a New Orleans city employee, not just any city employee. Unless the city has a documented policy, equally enforced across all scenarios, for suspending with pay those employees accused of a crime then this is punishment. In any other city than New Orleans or Chicago, I might accept the doubt.
-
A couple of years ago the chief building inspector of a town near me was arrested and charged with taking bribes to approve substandard work. This was a crime directly related to his work, yet he was suspended WITH pay for the duration until he was finally convicted and sentenced to hard time. Only then was he (and his paycheck) terminated.
Well, duh! He's management.
-
The US gov't is still paying the Ft. Hood douchequeda.
-
Only cops are allowed to be suspended with pay after shooting someone, didn't you get that memo?
-
I found the way this is being handled by the defendant to be enlightening ...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/the-merritt-landry-case-overview-of-louisianas-self-defense-statutes//#more
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjusticeformerritt.org%2Fuploads%2F3%2F2%2F9%2F1%2F3291935%2F5375338_orig.jpg&hash=6643e77bab9ed4528c57d504fe829ce0320d96cf)