UPDATE: Cannizarro Refuses to Charge; A friend was involved in a shooting

[nola_]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_booked_after.html#incart_m-rpt-2

For anyone interested, there will be a rally this evening for supporters of not only Mr Merritt Landry, but of those who believe in the right to defend themselves.

This rally is in advance of Merritt's next court appearance. It will be held in front of his home in the Marigny,
735 Mandeville St., NOLA

UPDATE:
DA Cannizarro refuses charges against Merritt Landry

http://www.wwl.com/pages/19016489.php?contentType=4&contentId=15232404

 

[MOTOR51]

So he was in his yard or in his house


MOTOR51

 

[bayougump]

I wonder how fast before this makes national news and Al and Jesse show up

 

[Storm52]

Kid was in the driveway, next to car according to the OP's article. Wasn't under the roofline of the house...yet.

 

[JWG223]

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. However, that article makes it sound like it will be very hard to prove that Mr. Landry's life or those of his family was in any kind of danger that warranted lethal force.

 

[SpeedRacer]

By rule of law and precedent set in previous cases, it would be a good shoot if the kid was behind a secured gate. But, with the current climate, the dude literally could not have picked a worse person or situation to decide to shoot someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[killerkarl]

Stories like that arrest make me miss Mississippi more and more.

 

[mcinfantry]

By rule of law and precedent set in previous cases, it would be a good shoot if the kid was behind a secured gate. But, with the current climate, the dude literally could not have picked a worse person or situation to decide to shoot someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

it would be a good shoot why? i am unfamiliar with a secured gate being an enumerated defense for justifiable homicide in rule of law or precedence.

 

[JR1572]

I'm going to leave this right here...


§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.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

§20.1. Investigation of death due to violence or suspicious circumstances when claim of self-defense is raised

Whenever a death results from violence or under suspicious circumstances and a claim of self-defense is raised, the appropriate law enforcement agency and coroner shall expeditiously conduct a full investigation of the death. All evidence of such investigation shall be preserved.

Acts 2012, No. 690, §1, eff. June 7, 2012.

JR1572


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[SpeedRacer]

it would be a good shoot why? i am unfamiliar with a secured gate being an enumerated defense for justifiable homicide in rule of law or precedence.

At least one shoot has been cleared in court involving shooting someone breaking into a vehicle that was parked in a driveway/street, no threat to vehicle owner whatsoever.

Add on top of that the kid broke a lock or climbed a gate to enter the property, it's hard to suggest he was there for anything but nefarious reasons.

Would I have shot? No. Can does not always equal should. But by the precedent set in previous cases he shouldn't have, and wouldn't have been charged pre-Zimmerman.

Of course this is based on the info at hand, opinion subject to change as more details emerge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rainsdrops]

Stop, don't move, what are you doing in my yard, i have a gun on you?

 

[Cat]

I understood the law as explained in my CHP class, I cannot defend property.

If I'm outside away from the guy, and he's inside the house stuffing jewelry down his pants... I can't kill him. I remove myself from the property, call the cops.


Likewise, unless he was breaking glass, or jimmying the door... I can't shoot to kill if I see him wandering around my property.

 

[Neil09]

I am under the impression that the ONLY justifiable reason is "I was in fear of my life", whether in my house or at Wal Mart..

 

[Cat]

At least one shoot has been cleared in court involving shooting someone breaking into a vehicle that was parked in a driveway/street, no threat to vehicle owner whatsoever.

Add on top of that the kid broke a lock or climbed a gate to enter the property, it's hard to suggest he was there for anything but nefarious reasons.

Would I have shot? No. Can does not always equal should. But by the precedent set in previous cases he shouldn't have, and wouldn't have been charged pre-Zimmerman.

Of course this is based on the info at hand, opinion subject to change as more details emerge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Really? I'm not doubting your word, but why did they feel it was justified when life wasn't in danger? I'd say that was protecting property.

I do find it distressing that nefarious has started to equal fear of life. I think there has become a sense of wink wink nudge nudge. If we are going to acquit when no threat existed, we need to modify the law to reflect that. It's acceptable to shoot when he's in your yard. I believe Texas has a similar allowance?

To use Stand Your Ground in this case, belittles the true life endangerment cases. And media sensationalism removes the important of self defense when comparing this to someone coming at you with a tire iron for example.

If that made sense.

 

[mcinfantry]

well, if its felonious, you could make a citizens arrest for the felonious charge. I think its in no way a 'good shoot' but my opinion is based on my experience and 19th JDC. I am unfamiliar with the DA and NO JDC and any case where a car burglar was shot and the shooter cleared here in the greater Baton Rouge Area.

I stand corrected. Is there a link to the case you mention?

 

[geoney]

By rule of law and precedent set in previous cases, it would be a good shoot if the kid was behind a secured gate. But, with the current climate, the dude literally could not have picked a worse person or situation to decide to shoot someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

This

 

[03protege]

I understood the law as explained in my CHP class, I cannot defend property.

If I'm outside away from the guy, and he's inside the house stuffing jewelry down his pants... I can't kill him. I remove myself from the property, call the cops.


Likewise, unless he was breaking glass, or jimmying the door... I can't shoot to kill if I see him wandering around my property.

Mind sharing who your CHP instructor was?

 

[Hermit]

We don't know any of the facts of the confrontation.
But I pity him pleading his case to an Orleans Parish jury.

 

[Cat]

Mind sharing who your CHP instructor was?

Sure.

Ernie Gamin.

But(!!) he is absolutely NOT responsible for anything I say concerning his class.

I will modify my last statement. Unless he was making an effort to enter my home, a strong effort... Essentially I can't run out of my home and protect our shop/separate garage.

If I see the guy walk around my car, no. My car is parked two steps from the porch. The minute he steps onto my porch, walking straight for our glass French doors, yes I'd shoot through them. But if he steps on the porch to walk across towards the shop, no. He would not be entering the house. It's subtle nuance. But a big difference. And forensics would certainly show the shot though his side vs one center mass facing forward.

 

[mcinfantry]

This

This what? Show me justifiable homicide that covers no IMMEDIATE or PERCEIVED threat against ones person or another by being behind a locked gate.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ