re: McKnight shooter released from custody...Cliffnotes of Normand press conf inside

quote:

---

i really don't know the answer to my question. But, does the law require the accused to prove that they felt they were in imminent danger? Or, does the government have to prove that they were NOT in reasonable danger? Which one?

---

based on the statute it seems that if you feel like the only way to remove them from your house or car is deadly force then it's justified. No mention of weapons or what exactly the aggressor has to do to make you fear for your life.


I just posted part of the law for the second time. here's the statute from the La legis site.

§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.

quote:

---

If he's inside of your car window and/or grabbing you and you fear for your life and safety, you can.

---

I addressed both of these situations. If he is standing at your window arguing with you, you cannot shoot him, unless you reasonably fear for your life (good luck arguing that if they're standing there). If he tries to get into your vehicle, you can shoot him.

Gasser's driver window is rolled down in the picture. If he and McKnight were arguing through the window, that isn't enough to justify killing him. If McKnight tried to grab him through the window or tried to get into the vehicle, then the shooting is justified.

quote:

---

gasser is at home right chillin

---

he better be working because he is going to need every last cent to his name to pay for lawyers now

quote:

---

Gasser's driver window is rolled down in the picture. If he and McKnight were arguing through the window, that isn't enough to justify killing him. If McKnight tried to grab him through the window or tried to get into the vehicle, then the shooting is justified.

---

This is my opinion after listening to the presser.

The hell he will,I'd donate to his defense fund if a link came up,I hate seeing innocent people punished unjustly by prosecutors like Marilyn mosby in Baltimore.

quote:

---

At this point, can't you just admit it looks Gasser will walk and the release was justified?

---

It may very well be but nothing in the press conference tells me that.

JM's vehicle was not on the passenger side of RG's vehicle.

I added cliff notes of press conference to the OP...

quote:

---

quote:
Gasser's driver window is rolled down in the picture. If he and McKnight were arguing through the window, that isn't enough to justify killing him. If McKnight tried to grab him through the window or tried to get into the vehicle, then the shooting is justified.


This is my opinion after listening to the presser.

---

something def went down at that window

quote:

---

If he is standing at your window arguing with you, you cannot shoot him, unless you reasonably fear for your life (good luck arguing that if they're standing there). If he tries to get into your vehicle, you can shoot him.

---

If I'm blocked in at an intersection and some dude is standing at my door yelling for me to get out the car so he can frick me up(this is just speculation), I can't shoot him?