- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:11 am to dbbuilder79
@ dbbuilder79
I know we are only debating this while we wait for more news on the flood
If anyone is bored here is an interesting site to surf. They even have a review on "The Judge"
LINK /
I know we are only debating this while we wait for more news on the flood
If anyone is bored here is an interesting site to surf. They even have a review on "The Judge"
LINK /
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:19 am to dbbuilder79
I can say that I am no lawyer. I'll even go on to say the only law I've studied is construction law. So unless we're talking about shooting a guy w/ a nail gun (which I've seen), I don't have much to offer on the legalities of shooting an invader.
I do know that any lawyer who says "that will NEVER go to court" can only fall into 2 categories.
1. a shitty lawyer.
Living in Vegas, ANYTHING can go to court, and furthermore, if said lawyer is so inclined, he will sue or talk you into suing for almost anything. Just as long as he gets his fee or 40% of the settlment/ruling.
2. full of shite
...or just full of himself. Once again, anything can go to court..
Any semi-intelligent business man will tell you that the best advice is the worst advice. When I talk to a lawyer/advisor, I only want to know the negatives. What can go wrong? If I shoot a guy who's in my home, what's my worst case scenario? It's the negatives that get ya. The positives take care of themselves.
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
I do know that any lawyer who says "that will NEVER go to court" can only fall into 2 categories.
1. a shitty lawyer.
Living in Vegas, ANYTHING can go to court, and furthermore, if said lawyer is so inclined, he will sue or talk you into suing for almost anything. Just as long as he gets his fee or 40% of the settlment/ruling.
2. full of shite
...or just full of himself. Once again, anything can go to court..
Any semi-intelligent business man will tell you that the best advice is the worst advice. When I talk to a lawyer/advisor, I only want to know the negatives. What can go wrong? If I shoot a guy who's in my home, what's my worst case scenario? It's the negatives that get ya. The positives take care of themselves.
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
This post was edited on 5/19/11 at 12:22 am
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:25 am to dbbuilder79
nail gun? cool, nail the punk to the door and call 911 
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:39 am to XxxSpooky1
I'm only halfway through the first page, and already the idiocy and ignorance, combined with an air of such certainty, makes me want to smash a fricking levee.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:48 am to USMCTiger03
keep reading, it gets better
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:54 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
makes me want to smash a fricking levee
Go right ahead.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 12:59 am to JulianD
My home defense is at bedside in an electric finger button coded safe. A simple 4 finger code opens the safe.
Many versions of this type of quick access single gun safe are aviailable. When I go out of town the weapon is loaded but not chambered and inside the same safe while kids are awake and then is on a shelf over our bed when the wife goes to sleep. The shelf is out of reach of the kids.
My kids know about my guns and are the saftey that is expected around them.
Many versions of this type of quick access single gun safe are aviailable. When I go out of town the weapon is loaded but not chambered and inside the same safe while kids are awake and then is on a shelf over our bed when the wife goes to sleep. The shelf is out of reach of the kids.
My kids know about my guns and are the saftey that is expected around them.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 1:01 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Not fantasy. You will get sued nine times out of ten.
Really?
Here's the Justifiable Homicide statute:
quote:
LSA-R.S. 14:20
West's Louisiana Statutes Annotated Currentness
Louisiana Revised Statutes
Title 14. Criminal Law
Chapter 1. Criminal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part I. General Provisions
Subpart C. Culpability
LSA-R.S. 14:20. Justifiable homicide
A. A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
Pretty favorable to the home/property owner.
Here's the reason why few of them go to trial:
quote:Now, unless there are some real exacerbating circumstances, very few plaintiff attorneys are going to risk getting hit with THE most strongly written fee/expense assessment provision in any Louisiana state statute that I'm aware of. I'm not saying never, I'm saying it's very unlikely.
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.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 1:15 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
is justifiable homicide under criminal law an affirmative defense under tort law?
Yes.
quote:"Your Honor".
LSA-R.S. 9:2800.19
§ 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.
quote:Amusing.
a fool
Posted on 5/19/11 at 1:23 am to USMCTiger03
The premise of "stand your ground" and "meeting force with force" will have to be self evident.
Hopefully everyone involved will act honestly and not try not distort the facts. (am I paranoid?)
"the court shall award" comes out of whose pocket?
What about any legal fees up front even if it doesn't go to court? If you talk to your lawyer first, is he on a fixed retainer? I haven't picked a criminal defense lawyer yet, should I?
The revisions to La law gives the righteous citizen a better chance of a just outcome in a just shooting. A move in the right direction for sure.
If you are properly prepared, keep your wits about you, do only what you have practiced, don't accidentally shoot through the walls or across the street (is this a rural or city example) or get shot by the responding police (has happened).
Hopefully everyone involved will act honestly and not try not distort the facts. (am I paranoid?)
"the court shall award" comes out of whose pocket?
What about any legal fees up front even if it doesn't go to court? If you talk to your lawyer first, is he on a fixed retainer? I haven't picked a criminal defense lawyer yet, should I?
The revisions to La law gives the righteous citizen a better chance of a just outcome in a just shooting. A move in the right direction for sure.
If you are properly prepared, keep your wits about you, do only what you have practiced, don't accidentally shoot through the walls or across the street (is this a rural or city example) or get shot by the responding police (has happened).
This post was edited on 5/19/11 at 3:09 am
Posted on 5/19/11 at 2:00 am to Rocketvapor
I'll be writing an intruding perp a prescription for lead ambien YE YE.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 5:47 am to RummelTiger
its called castle law rummel and we do have it in louisiana it applys to your home or your vehicle.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 7:16 am to Rocketvapor
quote:What the hell does that mean? Why do people insist on talking out of their asses on this issue?
The premise of "stand your ground" and "meeting force with force" will have to be self evident.
"self-evident"? WTF? quote:Unclear; either the plaintiff or their attorney.
"the court shall award" comes out of whose pocket?
quote:It varies.
What about any legal fees up front even if it doesn't go to court? If you talk to your lawyer first, is he on a fixed retainer?
quote:
I haven't picked a criminal defense lawyer yet, should I?
It probably wouldn't hurt to have a name/number on hand. 
Posted on 5/19/11 at 7:57 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
"Your Honor".
9:2800.19 is conditional immunity. If you are reasonable, you are immune. That means very little. If you are reasonable, you are not liable in negligence.
Clause B does change the game a little. But, as Professor Maraist says, that may not be a hill for a stepper. The person you shoot, or his representative in the survival action, will have nothing anyway. Further, if it is a survival action brought by a representative, I am not sure you could award damages against the representative as opposed to the succession.
That said, it will make you a little safer if you a little safer from civil suit if you shoot somebody. What it will NOT do is make you any safer from criminal prosecution if you are wrong. What it will also NOT do is cover your criminal defense fees. Don't tell me you will not have to hire a lawyer if you kill someone. And, it will not get you insurance if you are wrong. So if you prevail on this statute, you will end up with immunity and a meaningless judgment against a defunct defendant. Put plainer, you ain't never going to see a nickel of that money under section B, and it would not cover all your expenses anyway.
So it comes down to the same thing. If you shoot the guy in the ski mask with his hand in your jewelry box, you are ok. If you shoot your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak in with her after you have had a few drinks, or if you shoot the electrical repairman looking for your box during a power outage, you are in a world of hurt.
Alxtgr, a word for you in a moment.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 8:01 am to AlxTgr
quote:
AlxTgr
You were right and I was wrong about the risk of civil suit. In light of 9:2800.19, your risk of civil suit is lower than I thought. This is why I have associates in private practice, to keep me from going off the reservation.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 8:05 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
Now, unless there are some real exacerbating circumstances, very few plaintiff attorneys are going to risk getting hit with THE most strongly written fee/expense assessment provision in any Louisiana state statute that I'm aware of. I'm not saying never, I'm saying it's very unlikely.
I think you are right. It is less likely that I thought it was. I was wrong about that. But if you shoot and kill someone, and it is the least bit unclear that your were right in doing so, you still have a world of problems, as noted above.
That said, I don't want to take away from my first comment. You are right about the risk of civil suit.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 8:07 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
Unclear; either the plaintiff or their attorney.
I doubt that would be construed against attorneys. But it is a risk for anyone taking that case.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 8:25 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
You were right and I was wrong about the risk of civil suit. In light of 9:2800.19, your risk of civil suit is lower than I thought. This is why I have associates in private practice, to keep me from going off the reservation.
I was at home at the time and had no access to West(I like it that way) so I did not want to paraphrase the statute and get it grossly wrong.
There have been some invader killings here in the recent past, but not sure if the stories will be archived. Nothing came of those other than general cheering for the home owners.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 9:15 am to JudgeHolden
quote:True enough. I thought the discussion was premised on an assumption of reasonableness.
If you are reasonable, you are immune. That means very little. If you are reasonable, you are not liable in negligence.
quote:
The person you shoot, or his representative in the survival action, will have nothing anyway. Further, if it is a survival action brought by a representative, I am not sure you could award damages against the representative as opposed to the succession.
quote:I wonder if the attorney taking the case could be on the hook? Regardless, he would be duty-bound to inform his client of the risk posed by 19(B), which could have an effect on the person's motivation to follow through. I think the realistic effect of 19(B) is to make both plaintiff and counsel really take a hard look at the facts before filing and make sure a cause of action truly exists (something that should be done in every suit but often isn't). Another potential effect is to make it easier for the Defendant to hire counsel, as the prospect of having fees, costs awarded is a motivation for many.
So if you prevail on this statute, you will end up with immunity and a meaningless judgment against a defunct defendant. Put plainer, you ain't never going to see a nickel of that money under section B, and it would not cover all your expenses anyway.
As far as insolvency of the plaintiff, I know if I was the attorney handling the defense I would make it clear to plaintiff's counsel in no uncertain terms that under the circumstances I would be pursuing satisfaction of any judgment of costs, even if by garnishment, writ of fifa, etc.
quote:Of course not.
What it will NOT do is make you any safer from criminal prosecution if you are wrong.
quote:Yes, no one is saying blast away. However, given all due caution, the situation isn't as doom and gloom as many on here have said.
So it comes down to the same thing.
"We" want gun owners to be responsible and exercise due care - but at the same time not be plaqued by fear and doubts if/when the time comes to defend yourself/family. It's a fine line, and one all gun owners should follow. But by knowing the law, our resolve can be more sound.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News