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

[MOTOR51]

No one can say who is wrong or right, because the outcomes fluctuate so much. And I'm not saying the gate is a definitive determining factor, simply evidence of intent to commit a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

You cannt shoot someone because they are commiting a crime. You have to be in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or others.


MOTOR51

 

[killerkarl]

You cannt shoot someone because they are commiting a crime. You have to be in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or others.


MOTOR51

That varies from state to state.

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22825755/jackson-homeowner-shoots-kills-car-burglar-suspect

 

[MOTOR51]

That varies from state to state.

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22825755/jackson-homeowner-shoots-kills-car-burglar-suspect

We are in Louisiana.


MOTOR51

 

[JR1572]

That varies from state to state.

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22825755/jackson-homeowner-shoots-kills-car-burglar-suspect

True, however we're referring to a case in Orleans Parish, which is within the state of Louisiana.

JR1572


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[spanky]

Valeya Miles, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Good evening everyone,

I have to step in here and make a couple of moderation notes so you'll understand what's occurring when posts are removed. As a part of our Community Rules, we do not allow comments that blame the victim of a crime. As this time, Landry has been booked with attempted second degree murder of the 14 year old. As such, comments that blame the 14 year old for the shooting will be removed.

We are aware this policy may leave many questions, so I welcome anyone with questions to email me at anytime if you need further explanation - vmiles@nola.com. Thanks for everyone's cooperation.

Wow.

 

[spanky]

You cannt shoot someone because they are commiting a crime. You have to be in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or others.


MOTOR51

"reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" sums it up nicely, I think.

someone breaking into your car in your driveway covers neither.

 

[Cat]

"reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" sums it up nicely, I think.

someone breaking into your car in your driveway covers neither.

I think we had the same CHP instructor…..

 

[spanky]

I think we had the same CHP instructor…..

We did.

 

[Hitman]

No material item is worth dying or killing someone over.

 

[Jack]

You cannt shoot someone because they are commiting a crime. You have to be in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or others.


MOTOR51

Ummm.... I don't think you're right on this one, same goes for pretty much everyone else in the thread.

(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.

Seems like you can shoot someone for breaking in, or having broken in, provided it is reasonable to believe such force is required to prevent the entry or compel the intruder to leave. No fear of death/bodily harm required.

Note: I'm not saying this is what happened here.

 

[Cat]

We did.

I was being witty. I know we did, you're the one that told me to go see him. Phffft.

 

[mcinfantry]

Ummm....

(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.

Seems like you can shoot someone for breaking in, or having broken in, provided it is reasonable to believe such force is required to prevent the entry or compel the intruder to leave. No fear of death/bodily harm required.

only because while inside a home or car it is PRESUMED the intent of the suspect is there, and you are not under obligation to retreat, nor wait.

you cannot shoot them if they are in your home and you drive up.

insert know it all tough men examples/

 

[Cat]

Ummm....

(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.

Seems like you can shoot someone for breaking in, or having broken in, provided it is reasonable to believe such force is required to prevent the entry or compel the intruder to leave. No fear of death/bodily harm required.

Read closer.

However, you did not quote the entire law. Many times previous and preceding additions to the RS will expound and explicate those conditions set forth in separate subsections.


Or something to that degree. You cannot pull one tiny little part of our laws and use that as a complete and whole argument against a very vast and constantly changing legal issue.

For example, you posted sections of (A). Where (B) goes on to further clarify (A). You cannot use any section of (A) unless you also consider (B).



And I'm done playing i-lawyer. As always, and again, I may be ass backwards but that's why they write things such as (B) and © and (D) when expounding upon (A).

 

[MOTOR51]

Ummm.... I don't think you're right on this one, same goes for pretty much everyone else in the thread.

(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.

Seems like you can shoot someone for breaking in, or having broken in, provided it is reasonable to believe such force is required to prevent the entry or compel the intruder to leave. No fear of death/bodily harm required.

Note: I'm not saying this is what happened here.

Force against a person


MOTOR51

 

[Jack]

Read closer.

However, you did not quote the entire law. Many times previous and preceding additions to the RS will expound and explicate those conditions set forth in separate subsections.


Or something to that degree. You cannot pull one tiny little part of our laws and use that as a complete and whole argument against a very vast and constantly changing legal issue.

For example, you posted sections of (A). Where (B) goes on to further clarify (A). You cannot use any section of (A) unless you also consider (B).



And I'm done playing i-lawyer. As always, and again, I may be ass backwards but that's why they write things such as (B) and © and (D) when expounding upon (A).

Opps, I meant to copy 4a and b, here ya go

(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.

Unless I'm missing something, it pretty much says, if you're in your house and you feel you need to shoot someone to stop them from breaking in, you're good to go. No fear of great bodily harm or death required.

In section B it is expanded even more

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.

 

[Cat]

Opps, I meant to copy 4a and b, here ya go

(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.

Again, if you continue to read further… you did not include

B (1) and (2) WHICH includes the terminology "deadly force".

A single statement in (B) is not self supporting alone in it's singular entirety. (1) supports that the individual believes deadly force is imminent which gives us the right to unquestionably protect ourselves in our home.

Had (1) not existed and you can rely on B alone, this would give you the right to shoot ANYBODY who comes into your home… say your teenage daughter's boyfriend who walks in because she told him he didn't have to knock. Or my father's girlfriend because I *don't* have to knock when I go see my father.

If (1) did not exist, both examples would allow that person to kill regardless if they felt they were in danger or not. "Just for the hell out of" because they are the legal adult owner or resident, and did not wish for the visitor's entry.

So the parts you are not quoting absolutely are necessary.

 

[Jack]

Again, if you continue to read further… you did not include

B (1) and (2) WHICH includes the terminology "deadly force".

A single statement in (B) is not self supporting alone in it's singular entirety. (1) supports that the individual believes deadly force is imminent which gives us the right to unquestionably protect ourselves in our home.

Had (1) not existed and you can rely on B alone, this would give you the right to shoot ANYBODY who comes into your home… say your teenage daughter's boyfriend who walks in because she told him he didn't have to knock. Or my father's girlfriend because I *don't* have to knock when I go see my father.

If (1) did not exist, both examples would allow that person to kill regardless if they felt they were in danger or not. "Just for the hell out of" because they are the legal adult owner or resident, and did not wish for the visitor's entry.

So the parts you are not quoting absolutely are necessary.

So you think that one needs to satisfy every section, for it to be a good shoot? I'm of the opinion it is the opposite, one needs to satisfy one section for it to be a good shoot. Someone with more knowledge than me feel free to correct me. Oh and cat, when it says deadly force, they are talking about the home owner/business owner/occupant using deadly force, i.e. shooting someone.

 

[Bayoupiper]

True, however we're referring to a case in Orleans Parish, which is within the state of Louisiana.

JR1572


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Which means it could go either way.



.

 

[spanky]

Ummm.... I don't think you're right on this one, same goes for pretty much everyone else in the thread.

(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.

Seems like you can shoot someone for breaking in, or having broken in, provided it is reasonable to believe such force is required to prevent the entry or compel the intruder to leave. No fear of death/bodily harm required.

Note: I'm not saying this is what happened here.

Basically the home/business/vehicle have to be inhabited.

The "reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" comes when you are NOT inhabiting a dwelling or a vehicle.

 

[SpeedRacer]

The statutes are cool and all, but how you do explain either case I mentioned. According to y'all, there's no way they would possibly be a good shoot. Yet they were. I put more stock in precedent than I do iInterpretation of statutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2