- 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
re: Carjackings in New Orleans are the worst in a decade.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:04 pm to NIH
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:04 pm to NIH
quote:
I don’t like how your movement lumps in property crime with “non-violent” offenders.
I’m all on board for drug crime reform if it means we’ll start incarcerating those who steal on a larger basis. Nothing fricks up the social contract more than having to worry about your belongings being stolen constantly.
So, while I disagree with you, I would be 100% willing to acquiesce to the following:
We leave everything the way it currently is regarding property crime and crimes involving victims.
In return, we end the war on drugs and legalize any victimless behavior (the number of times I've seen "society" listed in the "victim" column of police reports for drug possession...). In a few years, we come back together and reevaluate.
Though if I get a second bite at the wish apple, I'd still like to kill monetary bail
1
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:07 pm to NIH
quote:
I don’t like how your movement lumps in property crime with “non-violent” offenders.
Massive pet peeve of mine. I don't get these people.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:08 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I'd still like to kill monetary bail
Catch and release. It don't work.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Massive pet peeve of mine. I don't get these people.
Those crimes aren't victimless, but they aren't violent, either.
Armed robbery is a violent crime. Popping car handles is a property crime. I don't think it's inappropriate to draw a distinction.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:10 pm to Mike da Tigah
Potholes doing work in Lakeview.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:11 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Catch and release. It don't work.
Incorrect. Just because you get rid of monetary bail doesn't mean you don't have some people who remain detained pretrial. I would like for the state system to mirror the federal system in which a contradictory bond hearing is had immediately and the court is required to make a finding of dangerousness and flight risk. Low risk? Released without bond. High risk? Held without bond. As is, you have people who remain detained pretrial on minor charges and people being released on bail for very serious charges. Doesn't make much sense to me.
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:35 pm to Mike da Tigah
Been this way for many months and people are finally taking their head out of the sand
It’s not just because of Covid!
It is because criminals are emboldened by the blm and defund the police movement. They feel entitled to your stuff so they take it and it helps that they They have no fear of the police.
It’s not just because of Covid!
It is because criminals are emboldened by the blm and defund the police movement. They feel entitled to your stuff so they take it and it helps that they They have no fear of the police.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:57 pm to Mike da Tigah
That nolia clap!
Gert town going strong and upper 9th/bywater
Gert town going strong and upper 9th/bywater
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:12 pm to Mike da Tigah
Sorry, gun violence is more important. That's why Merk and the prez are going after a distraction instead of the source of guns used. Just so happens that robberies, including carjackings are the primary source but "look, squirrel."
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:19 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Armed robbery is a violent crime. Popping car handles is a property crime. I don't think it's inappropriate to draw a distinction.
And if that property contains a legal firearm that is taken and used in a crime later?
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:31 pm to junkfunky
quote:
And if that property contains a legal firearm that is taken and used in a crime later?
One property crime, one violent crime.
Theft of a Firearm is nothing to sneeze at in Louisiana, though. Carries 2-10 without benefit.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:49 pm to Joshjrn
If they pull on the handle, I pull on the trigger.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:54 pm to kellyboy23
quote:
If they pull on the handle, I pull on the trigger.
Just be prepared to go to jail. There’s a strong likelihood you’ll be charged.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:56 pm to Breauxsif
Yeah I'm not going to shoot anyone over a vehicle or anything in my vehicle. I don't know about a car jacking situation though. I'd imagine if they stuck a gun in your face you'd be ok.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:12 pm to fallguy_1978
Obviously varies markedly by state, but this if for Louisiana:
quote:
§19. Use of force or violence in defense
A.(1) The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable under either of the following circumstances:
(a) 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.
(b)(i) 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) when the conflict began, 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 using the force or violence reasonably believes that the use of force or violence is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(ii) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person using the force or violence is engaged, at the time of the use of force or violence 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.
(2) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a 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 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.
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.
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.
Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.
quote:
§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) when the conflict began, 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 dwelling, place of business, 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 dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, 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.
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; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:18 pm to fallguy_1978
It’s a slippery slope indeed. You have to process a lot during a short amount of time during a potential car jacking. Explaining to your employer about an arrest. The hassle of bailing out of jail. The hiring of legal counsel to represent you. The cost of potential 10’s of thousands of dollars going to waste over that shite, and a felony charge may be the best plea you’re offered.
However, if I see someone pulling on the door handle of my vehicle, I won’t be shooting at them with the risk that they may or may not be armed. shite head burglars have a high probability of being armed. That’s a high risk gamble where if they happen not to be armed and you shoot them is where you can get into some serious trouble.
However, if I see someone pulling on the door handle of my vehicle, I won’t be shooting at them with the risk that they may or may not be armed. shite head burglars have a high probability of being armed. That’s a high risk gamble where if they happen not to be armed and you shoot them is where you can get into some serious trouble.
This post was edited on 6/24/21 at 12:38 am
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:18 pm to Joshjrn
Look at me, I'm smart because I have the ability to cut and paste from Google and wear a Guy Fawkes mask!!! 
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:21 pm to Breauxsif
If you're in your home or vehicle and someone is trying to gain entry, I wouldn't advise you shooting center of mass until the door or window gets popped, but after that, the odds are in your favor.
If you are outside of your home or vehicle, said home or vehicle being otherwise unoccupied by others, and you see someone attempting to, or having gained, access to either, and you kill them, the odds will not be in your favor.
None of this is to be construed in any way, shape, or form as legal advice
If you are outside of your home or vehicle, said home or vehicle being otherwise unoccupied by others, and you see someone attempting to, or having gained, access to either, and you kill them, the odds will not be in your favor.
None of this is to be construed in any way, shape, or form as legal advice
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:22 pm to cbdman
quote:
Look at me, I'm smart because I have the ability to cut and paste from Google and wear a Guy Fawkes mask!!!
No, I'm smart because I didn't type out something I knew I could access in less than twenty seconds
ETA: Also, you shouldn't google current statutes unless you know what you're looking for/at. Much safer to go straight to the legislature's website, as you know it will always be current: LINK
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 8:25 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 10:00 pm to tgrbaitn08
They tried to get an off duty guy that resulted in a shootout on Jeff Davis or whatever fricking name that street is now.
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News