Ongoing CCW Story from BR

[jeremyws1]

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/4997351.html?showAll=y&c=y

"That man, Mr. Stephens, saw two people tussling. He didn’t know who was right and who was wrong."

This is a wild guess, but probably the guy that WASN'T a cop!

 

[TowTruck]

criminal got everything he deserved, only he should have been shot in the head the first shot not 7 shots later.

 

[penguin]

It just pisses me off to no end to hear the family argue that his civil rights may have been violated. 'Sure, he was punching the cop and tried to bribe him earlier, but he is the victim...'. Gone are the days when the majority of people own up to their mistakes or admit that someone they are close to may be wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset, but where is the family member saying 'it's a sad, sad event; but I don't know what possessed him to hit a cop. Nothing ever good comes of that.'

 

[asianpersuasion]

he wasn't ccw. he ran to his car then help the cop.

 

[jeremyws1]

Did he have his carry license?

 

[TowTruck]

vehicle is an extention of ones home therefore he winz by teh default

 

[jeremyws1]

vehicle is an extention of ones home therefore he winz by teh default

He didn't shoot from his vehicle, though.

 

[TowTruck]

he didn't get it out of his truck and put it in his pocket, he saved an officer of the laws life with it in plain view

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

The cop was scared enough to draw and fire his weopon first...Temple escalated the situation to that point...not Stephens. Stephen's finished what Temple started. It is unfortunate that Temple was shot and killed. But its also unfortunate that his mother didn't teach him how to respond correctly to an authority figure.

 

[McMedic]

I just hope the fellow doesn't go broke defending himself in the civil lawsuit that we all know is coming.

 

[McMedic]

I got to thinking about it and looked this up:

RS 9:2800.19

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.
B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.

Also:

14:20

(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.

and:

14:22

§22. Defense of others

It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

He probably doesn't have too much to worry about as far as a civil suit is concerned.

 

[Yrdawg]

I got to thinking about it and looked this up:

RS 9:2800.19

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.
B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.

Also:

14:20

(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.

and:

14:22

§22. Defense of others

It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

He probably doesn't have too much to worry about as far as a civil suit is concerned.

Good info but didn't this shooting happen before the new bill was signed into law in august ??

 

[McMedic]

I'm almost certain these were already on the books. I know the part about employing deadly force on someone else's behalf was. I remember reading it in the book they send out with the CCW info packet.

The "Castle Doctrine" bill which went into effect in August just strengthened these already in effect.

Someone more knowledgeable can shed light on when which laws were in effect.

This probably won't stop them from filing a suit, but it should keep it from proceeding very far.

 

[dawg23]

I got to thinking about it and looked this up:

RS 9:2800.19

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.
B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.

Also:

14:20

(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.

and:

14:22

§22. Defense of others

It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

He probably doesn't have too much to worry about as far as a civil suit is concerned.

Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer.

Unfortunately the "Good Samaritan has a lot to worry about. The statutes you reference were amended in the 2006 Regular Session of the Legislature. The amended provisions took effect in the fall of 2006.

I'm afraid the following provision will be troublesome for Mr. Stephens:

"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."

In other words, will the sleazy lawyers claim Stephens could/should have attempted to prevent or stop the felony without using deadly force?

In any event, Mr. Stephens' legal bills will be huge. If this had happened in Mr. Stephen's home, or vehicle, or business, he'd have been immune from civil liability and would be eligible to seek reimbursement from the plaintiff if sued in civil court.

 

[McMedic]

Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer.

Me neither!

I'm afraid the following provision will be troublesome for Mr. Stephens:

"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."

In other words, will the sleazy lawyers claim Stephens could/should have attempted to prevent the or stop the felony without using deadly force?

The way I would see it if I were on the jury or grand jury would be that if the cop had already shot him one time and he didn't lose interest, deadly force would have been justified. But that's just me.

In any event, Mr. Stephens' legal bills will be huge.

You are most likely correct in that thinking. I hope it turns out well for him.

 

[jeremyws1]

Until there is a law that states a person killed while committing a felony has no right to sue an aggressor, there will always be gold digging families.

 

[penguin]

I agree with all of the above; however, the family will hire some sleezeball attorney to file a civil suit on the grounds it was an 'unreasonable' use of force.

 

[Speedlace]

Are there any updates on this story?

 

[dawg23]

Are there any updates on this story?

The only public "update" I have seen recently was an article in the Baton Rouge Advocate a couple of weeks ago. It gave a recap of the incident, and mentioned one thing that was omitted (or else I just didn't see it) from the initial reports.

Th article said the officer used his OC spray on George Temple, but it was ineffective. (Not too surprising, just had not been aware of this report).

 

[Speedlace]

Let's sue everybody

Officer, city, civilian sued in fatal shooting

By ADRIAN ANGELETTE
Advocate staff writer
Published: Feb 22, 2007
Advertisements
Louisiana 2 Step


The son of George Temple II, the Baton Rouge businessman killed during a traffic stop last year, claims in a lawsuit that the police officer involved used excessive force and the civilian who fired the fatal shots acted as a vigilante.

Karlyn King, the mother of Temple’s son, Collin C. King, sued late last week in state District Court in Baton Rouge.

The lawsuit names the city, Police Chief Jeff LeDuff, officer Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens as defendants.

Harrison shot Temple once in the stomach, while Stephens shot him five times, reported the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office, which investigated the February 2006 killing.

An East Baton Rouge Parish grand jury heard witnesses in the case but issued no indictments.

Authorities said Temple was pulled over by Harrison after cutting into a funeral procession on Greenwell Springs Road. Harrison and Temple began to fight, the Sheriff’s Office reported.

Sheriff’s Office investigators said Temple tried to bribe Harrison, and the fight began when the officer tried to arrest him. Stephens came to Harrison’s aid, shooting Temple five times, the Sheriff’s Office reported.

The lawsuit says Harrison grabbed Temple, sprayed him with Mace and jerked him from the vehicle before the shooting.

“The shooting by Officer Brian Harrison was intentional and deliberately done without his adherence to acceptable police rules, regulations, laws and practices,” King claims in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also accuses Stephens of committing “gross negligence” by firing his gun five times in public.

One shot hit Temple in the head and the other four hit him in the back, the lawsuit says. King claims Stephens’ “vigilante acts” directly caused Temple’s death.

The suit names LeDuff as a defendant, claiming the chief failed to properly screen, train, discipline and supervise his officers.

King is not represented by an attorney. She filed the lawsuit on her own. Attempts to reach her by phone Wednesday were unsuccessful.

Police spokesman Sgt. Don Kelly said he has yet to see the lawsuit and declined comment because it is pending litigation.