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

[MOTOR51]

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.

The reason you don't want them in your occupied car or home is fear, correct? Not to protect your tv


MOTOR51

 

[spanky]

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

The statutes are suggestions for those to err on the side of caution.

ianal and what not.

 

[madmax4x4]

Sean Minor, New Orleans East. Shot and killed a man attempting to burglarize his vehicle from his third floor balcony 30yds away. Grand jury declined to indict. And more recently, a few years ago a personal friend of mine shot and killed an unarmed burglar in a detached garage on his property, which happened to be about 3 blocks away from the case being discussed. No charges were filed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

It's a lot more then 3 blocks from the garage thing. This was two blocks from me.

 

[mcinfantry]

You give two examples. The DA Can sway a grand jury.

But to answer you question people have been and ARE convicted of it. A grand jury not indicting is NOT legal precedence nor does it become case law.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

 

[SpeedRacer]

You give two examples. The DA Can sway a grand jury.

But to answer you question people have been and ARE convicted of it. A grand jury not indicting is NOT legal precedence nor does it become case law.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

I think I'm using precedent incorrectly. I don't necessarily mean in a legal sense. I'm referring to it is a means of saying it's happened, so the statutes are obviously not as cut and dry as they would seem. You can't definitively argue "this is this because that says that" when it's been proven otherwise. Comparing those cases to the statutes cited only suggests to me that the statutes have the potential to mean jack ****. Guess it depends on the DA and, in this case, how recently a Mexican-Caucasian-American killed a black kid in Florida.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jack]

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.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[mcinfantry]

I think I'm using precedent incorrectly. I don't necessarily mean in a legal sense. I'm referring to it is a means of saying it's happened, so the statutes are obviously not as cut and dry as they would seem. You can't definitively argue "this is this because that says that" when it's been proven otherwise. Comparing those cases to the statutes cited only suggests to me that the statutes have the potential to mean jack ****. Guess it depends on the DA and, in this case, how recently a Mexican-Caucasian-American killed a black kid in Florida.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

the DA brings charges.

people have been beaten with beer bottles in bars and arent indicted. your examples have no legal bearing.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/arti...er-charge-against-16-year-old-Shreveport-teen
according to your logic you can kill people in a dice game

http://www.wafb.com/story/5754904/g...-man-accused-of-murder-in-crowded-parking-lot
you can kill in a bar parking lot

 

[Jack]

The reason you don't want them in your occupied car or home is fear, correct? Not to protect your tv


MOTOR51

If fear of death or great bodily harm was automatically conveyed from someone forcing their way into your home, the additional section wouldn't be required as it would already be covered. If I wake up to the sound of someone in my house, I can legally shoot them, regardless of if I am fearing anything. If the burglar is a naked midget in a wheel chair, I'm still legally G2G.

 

[SpeedRacer]

the DA brings charges.

people have been beaten with beer bottles in bars and arent indicted. your examples have no legal bearing.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/arti...er-charge-against-16-year-old-Shreveport-teen
according to your logic you can kill people in a dice game

http://www.wafb.com/story/5754904/g...-man-accused-of-murder-in-crowded-parking-lot
you can kill in a bar parking lot

My only logic is that law is in place for a reason and two similar cases should not have two different outcomes. If the DA reallh has that much control over the application of the statutes, then the system is broken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jack]

the DA brings charges.

people have been beaten with beer bottles in bars and arent indicted. your examples have no legal bearing.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/arti...er-charge-against-16-year-old-Shreveport-teen
according to your logic you can kill people in a dice game

http://www.wafb.com/story/5754904/g...-man-accused-of-murder-in-crowded-parking-lot
you can kill in a bar parking lot

Don't **** with leonard washington.

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/jwy71h/chappelle-s-show-the-world-series-of-dice

 

[mcinfantry]

If fear of death or great bodily harm was automatically conveyed from someone forcing their way into your home, the additional section wouldn't be required as it would already be covered. If I wake up to the sound of someone in my house, I can legally shoot them, regardless of if I am fearing anything. If the burglar is a naked midget in a wheel chair, I'm still legally G2G.

wow. yall are desperate to shoot people.

 

[mcinfantry]

My only logic is that law is in place for a reason and two similar cases should not have two different outcomes. If the DA reallh has that much control over the application of the statutes, then the system is broken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

or maybe theres more to the cases than you or i know? the cases are very rarely cut and dry. and on top of that EACH case stands on its OWN 'facts'

I am 99% positive you are going of a story you heard, not court transcripts, testimony, etc. AGAIN, I HAVE testified in CRIMINAL court, to GRAND JURIES, and arrested people on a myriad of things that you cant understand.

but ill recap

"good shoot" checklist
1) behind a locked gate
2) car burglars regardless of distance or intent
3) dice games
4) bar parking lots.

 

[Jack]

wow. yall are desperate to shoot people.

Lee, where did I say I want to shoot anyone?

 

[Xenon]

Have y'all seen the pictures? If the car war parked right up there by the back door, the guy could reasonably have thought the kid was coming for the back door. The detail will be covered in the camera footage, the testimony of his friend on the bike in the street and possibly what he told his wife prior to going to the back door. I don't think it's as cut and dried as "he was merely breaking into the car." According to statements, the guy thought he was an intruder. I know, good luck proving that.

Why no blood stains?

 

[SpeedRacer]

wow. yall are desperate to shoot people.

I can't speak for everyone here, but actually if you read my posts you'd see where I expressly stated I have no intention or desire to shoot someone unless they genuinely pose a threat. They can have my POS Impala.

I'm trying to make sense of statutes people are arguing about that you've basically suggested have no real defined meaning since the DA can apply them as he sees fit.

When I say "should", I mean I personally believe it should be the case. Simply because I believe law should be concrete and not applied on a whim. If one case is cleared, than a different and almost identical case *should* too. Has nothing to do with whether or not I think dude did the right thing shooting a kid in the head, because I don't think he did. But justice should not fall to personal opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Xenon]

Just watched the news and wanted to add a few details for those not privy.

Neighbor observed the kids looking in a window of another house the same night.
Merritt (shooter) had 2 Vespas and a lawnmower stolen from his property this week.
Other neighbors claiming that they are moving because of the recently increased crime on the street.
Video surveillance shows the kid jumping the fence and hiding/shifting around as he approached the house/car.
The teen attends school regularly and is a dedicated sibling.

Don't think any of this changes the application of the law, but it may change the jury's mindset

 

[drpc]

The biggest factor is the city in which the shooting occurred. If this had occurred out in the country up in north LA I don't think you'd see a Grand Jury indict the shooter. Back at North Board and Tulane the jury will look a whole lot different. The sad thing is dozens of criminals are found Not Guilty by "juries of their peers" every week. This case will be different. Here's a link to a Times-Pic article on the Castle Laws. Seems like you can use "reasonable" force to protect property. But can you convince a Tulane and Broad jury that the property was in danger and that a head shot was reasonable. A break in would be easier to defend.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/louisiana_stand_your_ground_zi.html

 

[SpeedRacer]

Just watched the news and wanted to add a few details for those not privy.

Neighbor observed the kids looking in a window of another house the same night.
Merritt (shooter) had 2 Vespas and a lawnmower stolen from his property this week.
Other neighbors claiming that they are moving because of the recently increased crime on the street.
Video surveillance shows the kid jumping the fence and hiding/shifting around as he approached the house/car.
The teen attends school regularly and is a dedicated sibling.

Don't think any of this changes the application of the law, but it may change the jury's mindset

GZ: The Sequel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[mr.z28]

he might get off...the prego wife and secured premises might work in his favor...but then again, he shot someone that wasn't in his home...if the kid was half way through the door or window, game on...but fiddling around the car, ehhh???...

 

[mr.z28]

I know this much for sure, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes...