Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

Doc, I don’t think that says that one can defend property with deadly force.

Hrm. I thought it was implied since, say, a home invasion robbery or car jacking would be common stand your ground scenarios. I’ll cop to being wrong unless I can find something to bolster the idea, but as I’m typing this out I have this thought:

Wouldn’t it be reasonable that you’re at your place of business, a mob shows up and starts destroying your crap, you yell at them to go away, but they rush toward you - wouldn’t you be justified in fearing for your life so you smoke a fool, they disperse, and you avoid prison?

- Doc

The thing about a home invasion robbery or a carjacking is that both situations can create a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. So, although there is risk to property, that risk isn’t what what creates the right to self defense.

I suppose a state could write its laws to permit deadly force in response to threats to property. I don’t know whether any do. It would open up a whole can of worms. Stuff can be replaced. Lives can’t.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm. I thought it was implied since, say, a home invasion robbery or car jacking would be common stand your ground scenarios. I’ll cop to being wrong unless I can find something to bolster the idea, but as I’m typing this out I have this thought:

Wouldn’t it be reasonable that you’re at your place of business, a mob shows up and starts destroying your crap, you yell at them to go away, but they rush toward you - wouldn’t you be justified in fearing for your life so you smoke a fool, they disperse, and you avoid prison?

- Doc

The thing about a home invasion robbery or a carjacking is that both situations can create a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. So, although there is risk to property, that risk isn’t what what creates the right to self defense.

I suppose a state could write its laws to permit deadly force in response to threats to property. I don’t know whether any do. It would open up a whole can of worms. Stuff can be replaced. Lives can’t.

Just, fyi, I’m not being combative; I’m genuinely curious what you think. So, when LA’s statute states:

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78338

§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.

I read that all it takes to shoot someone dead in LA is someone committing an unlawful entry into a home, business, or car and you’re justified in shooting them to go away. I’m not even seeing a ‘fear for your life’ add-on.

I mean, I’d say that I feared for my life just to give myself that extra layer of legal protection.

- Doc

[K Graham]

img_1_1637017023014.jpg

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

KG,

Why did he have it dismissed?

- Doc

[ajax18]

You’re literally allowed to protect your property:

Let me know if I have the wrong state and I’ll c&p the appropriate snippet.

- Doc

Doc, I don’t think that says that one can defend property with deadly force.

In reality I agree with Res Ipsa. You should see the hell Merritt Landry went through when he had to shoot Marshall Coulter robbing his house outside of New Orleans.

But originally Louisiana did have the castle doctrine that said you could defend your home or pregnant wife from thieves or vandals. The Merritt Landry case proves that in reality this doctrine practically no longer exists. The joke was that if you shoot someone in Louisiana, best to drag them onto your property.

[ajax18]

Stuff can be replaced. Lives can’t.

That sounds like your opinion on how things should be, not the law.

[Res Ipsa]

The thing about a home invasion robbery or a carjacking is that both situations can create a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. So, although there is risk to property, that risk isn’t what what creates the right to self defense.

I suppose a state could write its laws to permit deadly force in response to threats to property. I don’t know whether any do. It would open up a whole can of worms. Stuff can be replaced. Lives can’t.

Just, fyi, I’m not being combative; I’m genuinely curious what you think. So, when LA’s statute states:

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78338

§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.

I read that all it takes to shoot someone dead in LA is someone committing an unlawful entry into a home, business, or car and you’re justified in shooting them to go away. I’m not even seeing a ‘fear for your life’ add-on.

I mean, I’d say that I feared for my life just to give myself that extra layer of legal protection.

- Doc

Even if you were being combative, those are fair questions.

As I read the statute, if you return from taking a walk and find someone in the process of unlawfully entering your currently unoccupied home, I don't think you get to shoot him. Just going down the list:

A(1): doesn't apply because he isn't threatening to use deadly force against you.
A(2): doesn't apply because he isn't threatening to use deadly force against someone else.
A(3): doesn't apply because there is no one in the home that he could use deadly force against.
A(4) doesn't apply because you aren't in your house when the conflict began.
B: doesn't apply because you aren't in the dwelling.
C: doesn't apply because he hasn't used force against you
D: doesn't apply because retreat doesn't apply.

Same thing when you come upon a guy who has broken into your unoccupied car and is starting to drive away with it. You can't shoot him.

The general notion is that deadly force can be used in the face of certain threats to you or another person. But nothing in these statutes invokes a right to use deadly force to protect property.

[Res Ipsa]

Stuff can be replaced. Lives can’t.

That sounds like your opinion on how things should be, not the law.

It's what I think partly explains why the law distinguishes between persons and property when it comes to the use of deadly force. And if you spend some time studying the law, you'll find that it does.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think you make a compelling argument, and I stand, for the most part, corrected. Spank you very much.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Doc, I don’t think that says that one can defend property with deadly force.

In reality I agree with Res Ipsa. You should see the hell Merritt Landry went through when he had to shoot Marshall Coulter robbing his house outside of New Orleans.

But originally Louisiana did have the castle doctrine that said you could defend your home or pregnant wife from thieves or vandals. The Merritt Landry case proves that in reality this doctrine practically no longer exists. The joke was that if you shoot someone in Louisiana, best to drag them onto your property.

That could be, Ajax. Louisiana is unique in the U.S. in that its law descended from French, rather than English law. So, one always has to be careful when relying on case law from Louisiana when arguing a case under another state's law. I'd still double check that bit about defending one's home, as the "castle" principle is often misunderstood. Part of the general principles about use of deadly force is that it must be "reasonable" and "necessary" to prevent death or serious bodily harm. The "necessary" part leads to consideration of whether there is a duty to retreat from the threat if it can be done safely. The "castle" concept was originally an exception to a duty to retreat. It wasn't license to use deadly force to protect one's home. But, like I said, Louisiana is always the best place to find exceptions.