The Letter Of The Law

[posse comatosis]

The FBI says:

A homicide committed by a private citizen is justified when a person is slain during the commission of a felony, such as a burglary or robbery
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-14-justifiable_N.htm



LRS 14:20 says:

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.

The position of the FBI seems more aligned with part A(1) of the statute.

Is the mere advent of a felony going down sufficient in and of itself to meet the criteria of Section A(1)? The threshold here is not to stop a felony as outlined in A(2), but simply to prevent the death of or bodily harm to the defender or another innocent party without stopping a potential deadly or dangerous felony as a goal.

The FBI has created a safe harbor that is rather broad in scope by establishing any felony in commission is assumed to be a deadly threat, which effectively extends castle doctrine law into the street.

That, my friends, been a long time coming. But will it stick on the bayou?

 

[Bayoupiper]

Not for just "any" felony.

You cannot use deadly force to protect "property" in Louisiana.
There has to be the "reasonable belief" of loss of life, great bodily harm, or use of unlawful force against a person.

Nor does it really matter here in Louisiana what the Famous But Inadequate think.

.

 

[spanky]

Not for just "any" felony.

You cannot use deadly force to protect "property" in Louisiana.
There has to be the "reasonable belief" of loss of life, great bodily harm, or use of unlawful force against a person.

Nor does it really matter here in Louisiana what the Famous But Inadequate think.

.

Wouldn't fed law supersede state in this case?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

State laws can be more restrictive. That is what the LA RS does.

 

[Bayoupiper]

State laws can be more restrictive. That is what the LA RS does.

Exactly.


And local/parish ordinances can be more restrictive than State laws, with some exceptions I am sure...


.

 

[charlie12]

Until the grand jury returns a No True Bill, and the aggrieved party's family files a last-resort civil rights suit against you. The guy who piped that animal who was beating the cop to death is facing that right now.

.

I've been waiting to see how that turns out.

 

[GunAddict]

Until the grand jury returns a No True Bill, and the aggrieved party's family files a last-resort civil rights suit against you. The guy who piped that animal who was beating the cop to death is facing that right now.

.

It's too bad that the new protection wasn't in place when he saved the officers life. It's very hard to believe that the aggressor was not on something.

 

[hot shot]

Not for just "any" felony.

You cannot use deadly force to protect "property" in Louisiana.
There has to be the "reasonable belief" of loss of life, great bodily harm, or use of unlawful force against a person.

Nor does it really matter here in Louisiana what the Famous But Inadequate think.

.

I had heard that was recently changed? Have no idea for sure, just heard

 

[mcinfantry]

I had heard that was recently changed? Have no idea for sure, just heard

no, it has not

 

[Bayoupiper]

And just for the record, you can't use deadly force to protect your BOB either.......



.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

It's too bad that the new protection wasn't in place when he saved the officers life. It's very hard to believe that the aggressor was not on something.

That guy moved my hot tub. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd been on something or not. That woman is not of the same "caliber" as the guys father and mother, she is just after any cash she can get. Anyone in their right mind knows full well that was a justified shoot and further if the shooter had done nothing and the cop got killed, it's possible he'd have been charged in someway for not doing anything. It truly sucks that money grubbing leeches are allowed to cause financial ruin to someone like that.

 

[dawg23]

Wouldn't fed law supersede state in this case?

Everyone needs to note, very carefully, that the incomplete and misleading opinion that the OP excerpted from US Today, was not a quote from Federal statutes. It was a general statement (paraphrased by a reporter) with a big caveat that was omitted by the OP. The more complete statement in the article was:

"The FBI says a homicide committed by a private citizen is justified when a person is slain during the commission of a felony, such as a burglary or robbery. Police are justified, the FBI says, when felons are killed while the officer is acting in the line of duty. Rulings on these deaths are usually made by the local police agencies involved."

Please note also that USA Today is hardly a reliable source for legal opinions. (Of course, neither are a couple of members who regularly attempt to pose as such). Better sources might be the U.S. Attorney's office, the states' Attorneys General and your local District Attorney.

A general principle that one can often rely on is that homicides are usually prosecuted by state or local prosecutors, unless they fall into specific categories covered by federal statutes (murder of the President, murder of Federal agents, etc., etc.)

 

[LACamper]

What about LA's castle doctine? How does that interact?

 

[Cajun_Chuck]

Even it were justifiable and the case were dismissed; you better always keep in mind that lawyers will be coming after you for liability, after you finish completely draining your life savings account. Something to think about when carrying that piece around. If you think your going to die...then money is no use to you. If you think you can live through an incident (someone stealing your car) you will more than likely loose all your worldly possessions for justifiable homicide. Ayoob has some great articles dealing with law & issues such as this. OF COURSE, he has a lot of critics, but not all of his articles are good but some hit the nail right on the head.

 

[charlie12]

What about LA's castle doctine? How does that interact?

I would like to know too.

 

[posse comatosis]

LACamper,

I refer you to the opening post:

"The FBI has created a safe harbor that is rather broad in scope by establishing any felony in commission is assumed to be a deadly threat, which effectively extends castle doctrine law into the street."

You already have a safe harbor inside your home or place of business under the recent LA Castle Doctrine law which affords the legal presumption anyone who is not supposed to be inside either place is out to seriously hurt or kill you.

The FBI is in effect saying that presumption holds anywhere a felony crime goes down. Wow. That has huge implications.

Of course, the FBI is no arbitrator of state homicide laws, but as one of the nation's premier law enforcement agencies, second only to our own venerated LSP, it shows the general direction in which law enforcement may be headed in the long run. It might eventually work it's way into state statutes.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

However even if cornered in a closet in your own house if you shoot some scumbag coming for you, it's still possible to get sued by some sleezoid lawyer for violating the rights of the illegal that broke into your home.

 

[posse comatosis]

get sued by some sleezoid lawyer for violating the rights of the illegal that broke into your home.

You might get sued, but most lawyers are not going to take cases where there is very little hope of economic recovery under the statue below and in which most typical plaintiffs in such matters have little financial means themselves to pay hourly attorneys fees.

RS 9:2800.19 Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes
§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.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

You might get sued, but most lawyers are not going to take cases where there is very little hope of economic recovery under the statue below and in which most typical plaintiffs in such matters have little financial means themselves to pay hourly attorneys fees.

In most cases that may be true, but look at the case that Gunaddict and I were talking about. I guess she could be st=pending insurance money on it, I don't know. Either way the guy that saved the city cops life has been financially ruined from what I've read.

 

[Bayoupiper]

That's they way they are going to play it from here on out.
And it won't just be in the firearms arena.

They are going to make it so that people are afraid to do ANYTHING for fear of being fiancially ruined...


.