14 yr old shot from 30 ft away;shooter claims Stand Your Ground (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

ooh, ooh, I love "What if" games. Ok, what if the person on the property is actually a soldier from an alien civilization that is on a recognizance mission to determine what's earth defenses are, and by killing him dead, you end up saving the world because the aliens assume we can kick their ### since since their scout hasn't returned and decide not to invade?

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

aye, but that doesn't mean what ifs like "What if you ended up shooting your own kid?" become valid arguments.

Okay. And it made the shooter horribly wrong.

 

[Rayderr]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

ooh, ooh, I love "What if" games. Ok, what if the person on the property is actually a soldier from an alien civilization that is on a recognizance mission to determine what's earth defenses are, and by killing him dead, you end up saving the world because the aliens assume we can kick their ### since since their scout hasn't returned and decide not to invade?

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

aye, but that doesn't mean what ifs like "What if you ended up shooting your own kid?" become valid arguments.

Okay. And it made the shooter horribly wrong.

That may be, but if the kid was indeed making some sort of motion with his hand to his waistband, then the shooter has to draw a conclusion based on that acual observable evidence. Is this person who climbed the fence to get into the yard and was making an attempt to enter the house who now knows there is a gun pointed at him and given the command to freeze more likely to reach for his waistband because he felt like scratching his balls or because he also has a gun that he intends to use?

 

[jsharlan]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If your wife and kids are so important, what are you doing running around in the dark with someone who might try to kill you instead of calling the police? On top of that, how safe is your family if you get arrested and a jury convicts you?

As for the second part, it's the reason I have mixed feelings about this case. Chances are that the world is a better place without him in it. Maybe he could have turned his life around but the odds were against it.

No one is running around in the dark. When you hear noise, you find out what the noise is before calling police. The police rarely have the opportunity to prevent crime or protect you. They generally get there to sort out the aftermath. Your protection is your responsibility. Do you really think you have the 7-10mins(if you live in a good neighborhood and not Detroit) to wait for the police when there is a threat? The police can't be everywhere. When seconds count, they are only minutes away.

 

[jsharlan]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

I wouldn't shoot my kid in this scenario because when I yell freeze, he has the good sense to throw his hands up and yell "its me dad!". Not reach for his waist.

 

[jsharlan]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

ooh, ooh, I love "What if" games. Ok, what if the person on the property is actually a soldier from an alien civilization that is on a recognizance mission to determine what's earth defenses are, and by killing him dead, you end up saving the world because the aliens assume we can kick their ### since since their scout hasn't returned and decide not to invade?

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

No they really aren't. They are based on the fact that in that moment the homeowner has no idea if the figure is armed and what his intentions are. If he reached for his waist it is perfectly reasonable and legal to feel threatened and assume he is armed and respond regardless if he ended up having a gun or not.

 

[matttyl]

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

Again, YOU CAN NOT use the current knowledge that the intruder is in fact a child when talking about the "reality of the situation". The homeowner obviously didn't ask for ID from the intruder on his property that night. All he knew at the time, was that he found himself with an intruder on his property at 2AM who had to jump a fence to be where he is who made a movement to his waistline. That's the "reality of the situation".

If I'm faced with an intruder in my fenced in property at that time of night, especially in a high crime neighborhood like we're dealing with in the "reality" of this situation, I tell him to freeze and he makes a movement toward his waistband, I'm going to take that as a sign of aggression and deal with it accordingly.

Again - REALITY OF SITUATION - high crime neighborhood, 2 AM, someone on my property who could only be there by choice (not chance) from jumping fence, and made a movement toward his waistband when directly told to freeze. That's the reality.

 

[Clifford]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

ooh, ooh, I love "What if" games. Ok, what if the person on the property is actually a soldier from an alien civilization that is on a recognizance mission to determine what's earth defenses are, and by killing him dead, you end up saving the world because the aliens assume we can kick their ### since since their scout hasn't returned and decide not to invade?

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

aye, but that doesn't mean what ifs like "What if you ended up shooting your own kid?" become valid arguments.

Okay. And it made the shooter horribly wrong.

That may be, but if the kid was indeed making some sort of motion with his hand to his waistband, then the shooter has to draw a conclusion based on that acual observable evidence.

No, the shooter had the option of waiting to see what, if anything, the kid did after reaching for his waist. He didn't, according to his own testimony, and since no weapon was found at the scene, the cops thought there was enough reason to conclude that he did not act within the confines of the law, and made an arrest,

If the cops that patrol this area made that decision, do you not give them the benefit of the doubt that there were able to correctly size up the situation and made the right decision that the HO could have been acting outside the confines of the law?

The law:

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide. TBD

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 force or violence 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 the force or violence 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 force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred. NEITHER APPLY BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS DWELLING

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 force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force. DOES NOT APPLY

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 force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry. COULD APPLY AS JURY WILL BE INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER OPTION OF GOING BACK IN HOUSE

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

§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. THIS IS WHAT WILL DECIDE THE CASE

(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. THIS SEEMS TO ALLOW KILLING ANYONE THAT ANYONE COULD REASONABLY BELIEVE TO BE LIKELY TO USE ANY UNLAWFUL FORCE AGAINST A PERSON IN A HOUSE OR BUSINESS. THIS WOULD ALSO EXONERATE THE HO PROVIDED HE COULD CONVINCE A JURY HIS BELIEF THAT INTRUDER WOULD HARM HIS FAMILY WAS REASONABLE. THIS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY ALL YOU HAVE TO BE IS "REASONABLY" AFRAID TO LEGALLY KILL SOMEONE.

(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. DOES NOT APPLY

(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: THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY

(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. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY

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. COULD APPLY

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.

1 and 3 under justifiable homicide seem like they are enough to get him off.

 

[matttyl]

No, the shooter had the option of waiting to see what, if anything, the kid did after reaching for his waist. He didn't, according to his own testimony, and since no weapon was found at the scene, the cops thought there was enough reason to conclude that he did not act within the confines of the law, and made an arrest,

If the cops that patrol this area made that decision, do you not give them the benefit of the doubt that there were able to correctly size up the situation and made the right decision that the HO could have been acting outside the confines of the law?

You can not make that assumption. For all we know they only did it because they didn't want a Zimmerman type backlash.

 

[jsharlan]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

ooh, ooh, I love "What if" games. Ok, what if the person on the property is actually a soldier from an alien civilization that is on a recognizance mission to determine what's earth defenses are, and by killing him dead, you end up saving the world because the aliens assume we can kick their ### since since their scout hasn't returned and decide not to invade?

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

aye, but that doesn't mean what ifs like "What if you ended up shooting your own kid?" become valid arguments.

Okay. And it made the shooter horribly wrong.

That may be, but if the kid was indeed making some sort of motion with his hand to his waistband, then the shooter has to draw a conclusion based on that acual observable evidence.

No, the shooter had the option of waiting to see what, if anything, the kid did after reaching for his waist. He didn't, according to his own testimony, and since no weapon was found at the scene, the cops thought there was enough reason to conclude that he did not act within the confines of the law, and made an arrest,

If the cops that patrol this area made that decision, do you not give them the benefit of the doubt that there were able to correctly size up the situation and made the right decision that the HO could have been acting outside the confines of the law?

The law:

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide. TBD

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 force or violence 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 the force or violence 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 force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred. NEITHER APPLY BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS DWELLING

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 force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force. DOES NOT APPLY

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 force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry. COULD APPLY AS JURY WILL BE INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER OPTION OF GOING BACK IN HOUSE

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

§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. THIS IS WHAT WILL DECIDE THE CASE

(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. THIS SEEMS TO ALLOW KILLING ANYONE THAT ANYONE COULD REASONABLY BELIEVE TO BE LIKELY TO USE ANY UNLAWFUL FORCE AGAINST A PERSON IN A HOUSE OR BUSINESS. THIS WOULD ALSO EXONERATE THE HO PROVIDED HE COULD CONVINCE A JURY HIS BELIEF THAT INTRUDER WOULD HARM HIS FAMILY WAS REASONABLE. THIS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY ALL YOU HAVE TO BE IS "REASONABLY" AFRAID TO LEGALLY KILL SOMEONE.

(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. DOES NOT APPLY

(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: THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY

(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. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY

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. COULD APPLY

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.

1 and 3 under justifiable homicide seem like they are enough to get him off.

You have the option to jump off a building. You could live. Something tells me its not an option you would risk when your life is on the line. Just because he has the option to wait doesn't mean he is obligated to or that it is a smart option to take.

 

[Chaka]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

I wouldn't shoot my kid in this scenario because when I yell freeze, he has the good sense to throw his hands up and yell "its me dad!". Not reach for his waist.

You like to think he would and you like to think he wouldn't but you can't know that (no matter how much you protest otherwise). Kids are idiots and do idiotic things.

So good luck when faced with that decision, because that's what it comes down to, luck.

 

[jsharlan]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

I wouldn't shoot my kid in this scenario because when I yell freeze, he has the good sense to throw his hands up and yell "its me dad!". Not reach for his waist.

You like to think he would and you like to think he wouldn't but you can't know that (no matter how much you protest otherwise). Kids are idiots and do idiotic things.

So good luck when faced with that decision, because that's what it comes down to, luck.

Your what if is irrelevant anyway, this guy had a pregnant wife and young child which he already knew were in the house.

 

[Clifford]

Like I said, 1 and 3 could get him off, and 3 seems to allow killing people for things you think they possibly could do, which is exactly what this guy will say he did.

Basically all he has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family," and then the burden shifts to the prosecution, who have to prove to the jury that having such a thought in his head was unreasonable, at 2am, staring at an intruder on his property, in a high-crime neighborhood.

Even though the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that neither the man's life or his family's life was in any danger at the time he pulled the trigger, they have no hope of proving it was unreasonable for this man to fear that this intruder could harm his family. I can't imagine any case that could be presented that would prove that to a jury beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

 

[Chaka]

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

Again, YOU CAN NOT use the current knowledge that the intruder is in fact a child when talking about the "reality of the situation". The homeowner obviously didn't ask for ID from the intruder on his property that night. All he knew at the time, was that he found himself with an intruder on his property at 2AM who had to jump a fence to be where he is who made a movement to his waistline. That's the "reality of the situation".

If I'm faced with an intruder in my fenced in property at that time of night, especially in a high crime neighborhood like we're dealing with in the "reality" of this situation, I tell him to freeze and he makes a movement toward his waistband, I'm going to take that as a sign of aggression and deal with it accordingly.

Again - REALITY OF SITUATION - high crime neighborhood, 2 AM, someone on my property who could only be there by choice (not chance) from jumping fence, and made a movement toward his waistband when directly told to freeze. That's the reality.

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

 

[Chaka]

You just really have a total disconnect don't you? Your life could be over if you wait a split second. In the dark at 2am, if you wait a split second to see an actual gun in his hand, its too late. You're reaction time is not fast enough. Your wife and kids are sleeping right behind you. You aren't "running around town looking for people to shoot", you are at your house, on gated property, in the middle of the night. As soon as you feel threatened, you fire. Your family deserves your very best. To hell with what posters on the internet think about you after the fact. Your family still being alive is more important. If you go to trial, it was worth it. I have a wife and kids. I will go to prison if it means they live. What I find out later about the guy is irrelevant, at that very moment, that split second of fear and fatherhood, I protect mine. Their life is more important than yours 30 feet from me. You have excepted that fact when you jumped the fence.

Is the world a better place without this child criminal? Yes. You can think me insensitive, but its an absolute reality. You might not deem his crimes worthy of death, but if this kid continued to grow up and progressed to more and more crime? What if when he was 18 he killed someone during a crime? Would their life have been worth his? Its a hypothetical but no less so than the he was "just trespassing" or "just stealing a car".

If you are going to play the what if game then you can't ignore the possibility that you might end up shooting your teenage son/daughter who is trying to sneak back into the house after a night of partying.

Is the world a better place if you end up murdering your own child?

I wouldn't shoot my kid in this scenario because when I yell freeze, he has the good sense to throw his hands up and yell "its me dad!". Not reach for his waist.

You like to think he would and you like to think he wouldn't but you can't know that (no matter how much you protest otherwise). Kids are idiots and do idiotic things.

So good luck when faced with that decision, because that's what it comes down to, luck.

Your what if is irrelevant anyway, this guy had a pregnant wife and young child which he already knew were in the house.

If you say so, Chief.

 

[jsharlan]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

 

[jsharlan]

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

Again, YOU CAN NOT use the current knowledge that the intruder is in fact a child when talking about the "reality of the situation". The homeowner obviously didn't ask for ID from the intruder on his property that night. All he knew at the time, was that he found himself with an intruder on his property at 2AM who had to jump a fence to be where he is who made a movement to his waistline. That's the "reality of the situation".

If I'm faced with an intruder in my fenced in property at that time of night, especially in a high crime neighborhood like we're dealing with in the "reality" of this situation, I tell him to freeze and he makes a movement toward his waistband, I'm going to take that as a sign of aggression and deal with it accordingly.

Again - REALITY OF SITUATION - high crime neighborhood, 2 AM, someone on my property who could only be there by choice (not chance) from jumping fence, and made a movement toward his waistband when directly told to freeze. That's the reality.

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

Where you see child, I see criminal in the act of crime. You keep worrying about the rights of the evil of society, I'll be on the other side with the law abiding family men.

Why in the hell should he has punishment, community service or anything else? If he is deemed not guilty of a crime, he should have absolutely no punishment. He is not at fault for the criminals of society.

 

[Clifford]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

 

[Chaka]

You can try to joke and distract but you are ignoring that the reality of this situation was based completely on "what if this kid had a gun?". That's why the shooter pulled the trigger and all the arguments supporting that decision are based on that same "what if" scenario.

Again, YOU CAN NOT use the current knowledge that the intruder is in fact a child when talking about the "reality of the situation". The homeowner obviously didn't ask for ID from the intruder on his property that night. All he knew at the time, was that he found himself with an intruder on his property at 2AM who had to jump a fence to be where he is who made a movement to his waistline. That's the "reality of the situation".

If I'm faced with an intruder in my fenced in property at that time of night, especially in a high crime neighborhood like we're dealing with in the "reality" of this situation, I tell him to freeze and he makes a movement toward his waistband, I'm going to take that as a sign of aggression and deal with it accordingly.

Again - REALITY OF SITUATION - high crime neighborhood, 2 AM, someone on my property who could only be there by choice (not chance) from jumping fence, and made a movement toward his waistband when directly told to freeze. That's the reality.

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

Where you see child, I see criminal in the act of crime. You keep worrying about the rights of the evil of society, I'll be on the other side with the law abiding family men.

Why in the hell should he has punishment, community service or anything else? If he is deemed not guilty of a crime, he should have absolutely no punishment. He is not at fault for the criminals of society.

I presume you support every local, state and federal law currently in place with equal enthusiasm.

 

[matttyl]

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

I'm saying that you can not call him a "kid" when discussing the "reality of the situation" as it pertains to the HO at the time he pulled the trigger. He could not have known that.

He should not face any punishment at all, because as you say "he will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision." If it's the correct decision, why is there any punishment at all?!

 

[daddo39]

It's gonna be pretty entertaining watching a few folks in this thead go off the deep end after both Zimmerman and this guy are acquitted.

I fully expect this guy to be acquited and he probably should be based upon the facts (and without question base upon the law) but he still bears a lot of responsibility for making poor decisions that led to this outcome. He is an example of another wannabe Rambo who is just chomping at the bit to confront a "bad guy: (in this case a "bad 14 year old") and take him down.

Well congrats guy you got your wish and are going to get away with the murder of an unarmed child. Bravo.

Dumbest statement in the thread

 

[matttyl]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B...so even if a person comes at me and threatens me i have to wait until they actually do what they say they want to do(break my neck for example)...it sucks

 

[ATC1]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B....it sucks

So, someone can swing and miss and you still cannot punch them. Ah shucks.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B....it sucks

So, someone can swing and miss and you still cannot punch them. Ah shucks.

no...at that point i can defend myself

 

[[icon]]

I think the true litmus test in this thread is this question: Is the world a better place for this HO having shot the kid, or would it be a better place if he had not shot the kid.

I'm going to say the latter because I think the HO suffers far more, and I don't think death or near-death is a punishment that fits the crime that was likely taking place.

Hindsight.

What if it comes out that the kid DID have a gun... or regardless of the outcome what if he DID have a gun and shot the homeowner? Then your litmus test flips 180. That happens daily in this country as well.

Which is why it, along with every opinion you've expressed in this thread, is rife with Fail. It relies on hindsight.

 

[Chaka]

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

I'm saying that you can not call him a "kid" when discussing the "reality of the situation" as it pertains to the HO at the time he pulled the trigger. He could not have known that.

He should not face any punishment at all, because as you say "he will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision." If it's the correct decision, why is there any punishment at all?!

There isn't any punishment yet and I doubt there will be. That doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be any punishment.

The kill was "clean" but that doesn't mean they couldn't hit him with non prison bearing charges like reckless endangerment or discharging a firearm within city limits. I understand that won't happen but this guy made a mistake it would be nice if the law were able to look at that part too. Won't happen but it would be nice.

There are entirely too many people with guns in this country that have no earthly idea of the responsibility that goes with owning one as evidenced by the tens of thousands of accidental shootings every year.

 

[Clifford]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(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.

what part?

 

[Clifford]

I think the true litmus test in this thread is this question: Is the world a better place for this HO having shot the kid, or would it be a better place if he had not shot the kid.

I'm going to say the latter because I think the HO suffers far more, and I don't think death or near-death is a punishment that fits the crime that was likely taking place.

Hindsight.

What if it comes out that the kid DID have a gun... or regardless of the outcome what if he DID have a gun and shot the homeowner? Then your litmus test flips 180. That happens daily in this country as well.

Which is why it, along with every opinion you've expressed in this thread, is rife with Fail. It relies on hindsight.

It's intended to be a hindsight question dealing with what we actually know now.

Do you feel cooler when you type "rife with fail" or when you tell us about the gun you wear to work?

 

[[icon]]

Do you feel cooler when you type "rife with fail" or when you tell us about the gun you wear to work?

Yes.

 

[Clifford]

Do you tell all your coworkers that you are packing so they know to feel safe with you around?

 

[[icon]]

Do you tell all your coworkers that you are packing so they know to feel safe with you around?

I go to the range with a couple of my coworkers about once a week. I've helped our CEO line up a case of 9mm ammo during the shortage earlier this year. They're just fine on their own.

 

[Henry Ford]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B...so even if a person comes at me and threatens me i have to wait until they actually do what they say they want to do(break my neck for example)...it sucks

Really? If someone breaks down your door and comes into your house, you just have to stand there until they do something? That's crazy.... what are you, Canadian?

 

[Clifford]

Oh come on, I'm sure there are some pansies like me there who don't carry that depend on you to save them when the inevitable happens.

 

[[icon]]

Oh come on, I'm sure there are some pansies like me there who don't carry that depend on you to save them when the inevitable happens.

The only inevitable things in life are death, taxes, and Tim posting 50 times a day.

 

[jon_mx]

I am glad there are laws so we can keep these kids off our lawns.

 

[Henry Ford]

Oh come on, I'm sure there are some pansies like me there who don't carry that depend on you to save them when the inevitable happens.

He's already promised to save me when it all goes down. You're on your own.

 

[[icon]]

Oh come on, I'm sure there are some pansies like me there who don't carry that depend on you to save them when the inevitable happens.

He's already promised to save me when it all goes down. You're on your own.

I suspect you don't need saving...

 

[Henry Ford]

Oh come on, I'm sure there are some pansies like me there who don't carry that depend on you to save them when the inevitable happens.

He's already promised to save me when it all goes down. You're on your own.

I suspect you don't need saving...

I very seldom have a gun within reach. Almost never on my person.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

I'm saying that you can not call him a "kid" when discussing the "reality of the situation" as it pertains to the HO at the time he pulled the trigger. He could not have known that.

He should not face any punishment at all, because as you say "he will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision." If it's the correct decision, why is there any punishment at all?!

There isn't any punishment yet and I doubt there will be. That doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be any punishment.

The kill was "clean" but that doesn't mean they couldn't hit him with non prison bearing charges like reckless endangerment or discharging a firearm within city limits. I understand that won't happen but this guy made a mistake it would be nice if the law were able to look at that part too. Won't happen but it would be nice.

There are entirely too many people with guns in this country that have no earthly idea of the responsibility that goes with owning one as evidenced by the tens of thousands of accidental shootings every year.

Yeah well finally you are seeing the result of the "gun grabbers" going crazy. All it did was push millions of non-gun users to go out and buy guns. I told you this would happen months ago.

Thanks to Bloomberg, Obama et al, you have a bunch of irresponsible gun owners that had no interest in guns before and have no idea what responsible gun ownership means.

This is what the gun grabbers have brought to America, rejoice and be happy.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Missed several pages in here.

Should I assume that while I was gone we've all agreed that that people who arm themselves, place themselves in potentially dangerous situations, and end up killing other people for petty thievery instead of letting the police handle things are a much lower form of life than the petty thieves themselves?

Time to close the thread then?

 

[Chaka]

I'm calling him a kid because he's, y'know, a kid. The "what if" is whether or not the kid had a gun, which he did not. All arguments supporting the shooter play off that "what if" (and they were wrong), it is completely valid to discuss other "what ifs" in this situation, so far we have one that ended with a child getting shot in the head when it could ave been avoided with a little more thought from all parties involved.

Again let me reiterate that I think it was a "clean shooting" the shooter will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision. In my view the shooter should not go to jail but should face some punishment as well. Lots and lots of community service helping at risk youth seems like a good place to start.

I'm saying that you can not call him a "kid" when discussing the "reality of the situation" as it pertains to the HO at the time he pulled the trigger. He could not have known that.

He should not face any punishment at all, because as you say "he will get off and in the eyes of the law that is the correct decision." If it's the correct decision, why is there any punishment at all?!

There isn't any punishment yet and I doubt there will be. That doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be any punishment.

The kill was "clean" but that doesn't mean they couldn't hit him with non prison bearing charges like reckless endangerment or discharging a firearm within city limits. I understand that won't happen but this guy made a mistake it would be nice if the law were able to look at that part too. Won't happen but it would be nice.

There are entirely too many people with guns in this country that have no earthly idea of the responsibility that goes with owning one as evidenced by the tens of thousands of accidental shootings every year.

Yeah well finally you are seeing the result of the "gun grabbers" going crazy. All it did was push millions of non-gun users to go out and buy guns. I told you this would happen months ago.

Thanks to Bloomberg, Obama et al, you have a bunch of irresponsible gun owners that had no interest in guns before and have no idea what responsible gun ownership means.

This is what the gun grabbers have brought to America, rejoice and be happy.

Oh please. What a weak attempt to take a shot at Bloomberg and Obama. Any recent uptick in gun sales has had no impact (yet) on the number of people who are accidentally shot by guns every year. There were plenty of morons who would have difficulty spelling gun, and certainly have no business owning one, long before any gun grab, particularly a gun grab that never happened. It might get worse going forward, probably will, but it was already a horrific problem.

 

[Henry Ford]

Missed several pages in here.

Should I assume that while I was gone we've all agreed that that people who arm themselves, place themselves in potentially dangerous situations, and end up killing other people for petty thievery instead of letting the police handle things are a much lower form of life than the petty thieves themselves?

Time to close the thread then?

Yeah, just figuring out the per person tax burden of all citizens calling 911 every time a dog barks at a window.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B...so even if a person comes at me and threatens me i have to wait until they actually do what they say they want to do(break my neck for example)...it sucks

Really? If someone breaks down your door and comes into your house, you just have to stand there until they do something? That's crazy.... what are you, Canadian?

im not talking about a home invasion...im talking about out on the streets or in a bar. If you haul off and belt someone because you felt threatened they can take you to court for assault and battery.

 

[Henry Ford]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B...so even if a person comes at me and threatens me i have to wait until they actually do what they say they want to do(break my neck for example)...it sucks

Really? If someone breaks down your door and comes into your house, you just have to stand there until they do something? That's crazy.... what are you, Canadian?

im not talking about a home invasion...im talking about out on the streets or in a bar. If you haul off and belt someone because you felt threatened they can take you to court for assault and battery.

If you shoot someone in a bar under the same circumstances, you'll be in even bigger trouble.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If you want to wait for someone to shoot you so you can be "attacked", its kinda hard to defend yourself. Nothing legally requires you to be physically attacked before you can defend yourself. I have no sympathy for criminals coming under fire while committing crimes. Occupational hazard. If more criminals feared their potential victims, there would be a whole lot less overall crime.

Very, very, very well said. It seems some don't quite follow your basic logic, though.

well all i know is i cant punch someone in the face unless they touch me first or i get charged with A & B...so even if a person comes at me and threatens me i have to wait until they actually do what they say they want to do(break my neck for example)...it sucks

Really? If someone breaks down your door and comes into your house, you just have to stand there until they do something? That's crazy.... what are you, Canadian?

im not talking about a home invasion...im talking about out on the streets or in a bar. If you haul off and belt someone because you felt threatened they can take you to court for assault and battery.

If you shoot someone in a bar under the same circumstances, you'll be in even bigger trouble.

You`re correct sir

 

[matttyl]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(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.

what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.

Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

 

[matttyl]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

 

[BroadwayG]

You should have went outside and fired a few warning shots into the air.

 

[cstu]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(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.what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

His point, which I completely agree with, is that if someone is willing to lie then they can get away with murdering a trespasser.

 

[matttyl]

You should have went outside and fired a few warning shots into the air.

Yeah, that would have been the smartest thing to do.