re: Let's keep an eye on this one.....

After reading the link it looks like it would've been better for the woman to just let the assholes take her stuff.

I'm not saying it's right, but her family's world is rocked.

quote:

---

please do, its ashamed that you can't protect yourself and your property without some fallout or worry of civil litigation in situations like this.

---

Armed Citizens, although there are no guarantees, the law in Louisiana does give you some of the more strongly-worded protections that I've seen on the books:

quote:

---

LSA-R.S. 9:2800.19

West's Louisiana Statutes Annotated Currentness
Louisiana Revised Statutes
Title 9. Civil Code Ancillaries
Code Book III. Of the Different Modes of Acquiring the Ownership of Things
Code Title V. Of Quasi Contracts, and of Offenses and Quasi Offenses
Chapter 2. Of Offenses and Quasi Offenses (Refs & Annos)
§ 2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

---

The second part is important as it would likely dissuade any ambulance chasers (who usually operate on a shoe-string budget anyway) from taking the case, and would greatly help you retain competent counsel.

quote:

---

What determines reasonable and apparent necessary force in this situation from a legal standpoint?

---

LSA-R.S. 14:20 gives the following presumptions which tends to answer your question:

quote:

---

Justifiable homicide.

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.

---

Not a lot of caselaw on it, but I did find:
"Factors to consider in determining whether a defendant had a reasonable belief that the killing was necessary, for purposes of claim of self-defense, are the excitement and confusion of the situation, the possibility of using force or violence short of killing, and the defendant's knowledge of the assailant's bad character." State v. Mincey, App. 3 Cir.2009, 2008-1315 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 2009 WL 1531570.

I'd argue that "the excitement and confusion of the situation" would nearly always apply in a home/property invasion scenario, and how could they prove otherwise? Also "the possibility of using force or violence short of killing" is a pretty vague term, but in the case of the OP, appears clearly met by the multiple warnings given.