The article says the guy arrived and got out of his vehicle with a weapon, but then ran as the deputy was trying to handcuff him. I've got a strong inclination to assume that the deputy wasn't trying to handcuff him without first successfully disarming him. I'm all for scumbags getting what's coming for 'em, but it sounds like it was delivered in the wrong manner by the wrong person in this case. Maybe more details will come to light as this progresses.
Innis, LA shooting puts family at odds with police
- Thread starter oleheat
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Don't believe everything you read or see in the news. If you have ever been in an event that was newsworthy, and saw the event reported in the paper or TV, you would know that the reporters had no idea what actually happened. TV sound bites are the worst, with printed reports online or on paper only slightly better. (One blatant example is the 'hands-up, don't shoot" Ferguson initial news reports. The Media never took responsibility for the aftermath, and a large segment of society still believes events that never occurred).
The basic facts that probably occurred were:
1 - the perp drove the ex-gf's mother to where his ex-gf's sister was staying,
2 - deputy got in scuffle with perp
3 - ex-gf's sister's boyfriend shot perp
4 - ex-gf's sister's boyfriend was arrested
Everything else is supposition, hearsay, misstatements, and reporter's inability to hear and understand what they were told. I'd wait to see what evidence comes out in the grand jury and/or trial before making any statements supporting the shooter or not.
In my experience, media reporters are only slightly better than politicians and used car salesmen in stating the truth.
The basic facts that probably occurred were:
1 - the perp drove the ex-gf's mother to where his ex-gf's sister was staying,
2 - deputy got in scuffle with perp
3 - ex-gf's sister's boyfriend shot perp
4 - ex-gf's sister's boyfriend was arrested
Everything else is supposition, hearsay, misstatements, and reporter's inability to hear and understand what they were told. I'd wait to see what evidence comes out in the grand jury and/or trial before making any statements supporting the shooter or not.
In my experience, media reporters are only slightly better than politicians and used car salesmen in stating the truth.
Last edited:
I think y'all are leaving out the fact that there was a foot pursuit in which the civilian joined in on. This wasn't a case of the deputy fighting with the suspect and civilian helps out deputy. Seems like civilian tried to play police by engaging in a foot pursuit and his lack of training ended in him killing someone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe the deputy was overweight or out of shape, and the shooter saw him huffing and puffing when he was getting out of his car, and figured he better (help), chase this dude with him?!?!
There is a donut joke in there somewhere!
If we are just going to throw out "seems likes" and "maybes", maybe the civilian was fed up with the department and figured if the perp was bold enough to kidnap someone that his family would not be safe until this guy is caught or in the ground. Maybe. We dont know what happened, but I do know if someone tried that with my family I wouldnt rest (literally would not sleep) till he was locked up in a cell or a no longer breathing. This is one of those parts of the justice system that continues to fail the weak, the victims have the right to feel safe (now thats not an ammendment but a refference to the peamble), and most reasonable people understand that the police cant always be there to protect us. So since we are already traveling that road what would have happened if the deputy couldnt catch or subdue the perp. Would they be able to provide 24 hour protection to the families effected? And if some how they could, how long? Again people have a right to feel safe and part of that right is a responsibility to protect yourself and those who are around you. Its not being a vigilanty doing what it takes to protect yourself and your family and its not playing soldier or whatever else.
Now all that said if he shot and killed an unarmed man that he and the officer or just the officer could have subdued then maybe thats a different story. Even if thats how it went down I cant say I blame him. If thats the case, based on our court system he probably should be charged, but I cant say I wouldnt have done the same. Those kinds of stories rarely end well either the victim or a family member dies or the perp. Or some combination.
Last edited:
Nah lets not go there.
Where are you guys getting this detailed account of what happened and/or that detailed information about the case? Unless we missed it, I am just seeing some story as told to me by......?!?!
It took a week to find out that the State Police were accepting the Brusly deputy's story of shooting his wife at the breakfast table!
Last edited:
Unless we know exactly what happened between the attemped arrest and shots fired we are just speculating. I think its reasonable and within the rights of a citizen to assist an officer in subduing a person who has shown intent to harm you or someone else. I think some instances its reasonable to expect a citizen alone to be able to subdue a person.
For me the question really comes down to was this a justified use of deadly force, and I think none of us have the information at our disposal to determine that at this time.
Last edited:
For those that have not attended a CHP Class.
Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 14:20
§20. Justifiable homicide
A. 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.
(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.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
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 deadly force 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 deadly force 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 deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 14:20
§20. Justifiable homicide
A. 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.
(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.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
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 deadly force 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 deadly force 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 deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
Where were you when I needed info about the Brusly guy?
You LEOs left me out to dry on that one.
Last edited:
Your statute must have gotten cut off when you pasted! FIFY!
Nice little addition.
And while the you cant shoot a man in the back Louisiana does allow for a citizens arrest in the case of felonies. That would allow for the use of violence. So again it all boils down to was deadly force reasonable? And as of now the people here likely do not know yet.
Whitebread are you Barney's son? "Citizen's Arrest, Citizen's Arrest".
That is exactly what I was giggling about while I typed it. I knew The Andy Griffith show would come up.
The ability to detain a person who commited a felony until the police can take him into custody does exist. Please note FELONY as the operative word. You cant tackle a guy for jay walking or something silly like that.
