BayouShooter Ad Available
Interstate Guns
Mark Garber, Lawyer

Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Louisiana's Castle Doctrine

  1. #1
    Instructor
    Site Sponsor
    Bearco's Avatar

    Louisiana's Castle Doctrine

    RS 14:19
    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336
    §19. Use of force or violence in defense

    A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable 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, and that 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.
    RS 14:20
    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=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), 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.

    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.
    RS 9:2800.19
    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=408383
    §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.

    Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.
    Last edited by Bearco; October 15th, 2009 at 05:38 AM.
    Defensive Firearms Training and CHP Certification
    www.BearcoTraining.com
    Facebook.com/bearco

  2. #2
    Premium CoonAss Member CajunTim's Avatar
    Thanks
    Q.E.D.

    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust.

  3. #3
    Banned
    If this is not covered in your CHp class, you are being robbed....

  4. #4
    Nope. spanky's Avatar
    i have those bookmarked

    USPSA # L3344 - CRO
    Vice President - East Ascension Practical Shooters
    Board Member - Louisiana Shooting Association

    Become a Site Donor or Advertiser

    Quote Originally Posted by speedracer
    as long as a B-27 silhoutte breaks into your house and stands still exactly 15yds away you'll have no problem protecting yourself and your family.

  5. #5
    Slave to Society FishingBack's Avatar
    This could probably be highlighted for special attention.

    (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.

  6. #6
    SEND IT Barney88PDC's Avatar
    "§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."


    Ok so if I am reading this right then if someone breaks into my house and it results in their justifable homicide then the perps family cannont come sue me in civil court. Now what about coming to the defense of someone in a public place? I do not think it does but does this law extend to that as well? Meaning if I shoot a perp trying to rob the 7-11 am I immune to civil trial? I do not think so but someone correct me if I am wrong.

  7. #7
    Slave to Society FishingBack's Avatar
    §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.
    RS 14:20 from above says:

    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.
    It appears to me that if it was deemed reasonable and apparently necessary, you are protected from civil liability in all places you are lawfully able to be. If it were not reasonable or apparently necessary then you would likely be charged criminally and in a civil suit.

  8. #8
    Marksman

    Premium Member
    kdick3's Avatar
    I'm confused....

    http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=19916

    So how does that guy have to sell his home to pay for defense fees in his civil suit if:

    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.
    Last edited by kdick3; July 1st, 2009 at 12:32 PM.
    “We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

  9. #9
    Marksman

    Premium Member
    flamatrix99's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by kdick3 View Post
    I'm confused....

    http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=19916

    So how does that guy have to sell his home to pay for defense fees in his civil suit if:
    That was passed after this event happened... We covered this on my CHP class.

  10. #10
    Marksman

    Premium Member
    kdick3's Avatar
    Oh okay, good.
    “We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

  11. #11
    SEND IT Barney88PDC's Avatar
    Ok so flamatrix99 what kdick3 said is exactly what I was referring to. So it is your understanding that NOW if you come to the aid of someone in distress and use justified lethal force then you are immune from civil action?

    Maybe Nolacop can shead some light on this?

  12. #12
    Marksman

    Premium Member
    kdick3's Avatar
    I don't know, I was looking for that but either I can't read or "you or someone elses life" isn't in those articles defining a justifiable homicide.

    Still a little confused!
    “We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan

  13. #13
    Marksman

    Premium Member
    flamatrix99's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Barney88pdc View Post
    Ok so flamatrix99 what kdick3 said is exactly what I was referring to. So it is your understanding that NOW if you come to the aid of someone in distress and use justified lethal force then you are immune from civil action?

    Maybe Nolacop can shead some light on this?
    Yes Barney I believe that is correct.

  14. #14
    Nope. spanky's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Barney88pdc View Post
    Ok so flamatrix99 what kdick3 said is exactly what I was referring to. So it is your understanding that NOW if you come to the aid of someone in distress and use justified lethal force then you are immune from civil action?

    Maybe Nolacop can shead some light on this?
    The only way you can legally come to the aide of someone using lethal force is if they themselves would have been justified in using it.

    And You better be damn sure you know what you're getting yourself into when you go to the aide of a perfect stranger.

    Repeat after me; "Reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm."

    USPSA # L3344 - CRO
    Vice President - East Ascension Practical Shooters
    Board Member - Louisiana Shooting Association

    Become a Site Donor or Advertiser

    Quote Originally Posted by speedracer
    as long as a B-27 silhoutte breaks into your house and stands still exactly 15yds away you'll have no problem protecting yourself and your family.

  15. #15
    SEND IT Barney88PDC's Avatar
    Well if I can get legal conformation then this REALLY changes things as far as I am concerned. I would never hesitate to defend myself or my family regardless but some other situations I would have been hesitant due to civil law suits.

  16. #16
    Nope. spanky's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Barney88pdc View Post
    Well if I can get legal conformation then this REALLY changes things as far as I am concerned. I would never hesitate to defend myself or my family regardless but some other situations I would have been hesitant due to civil law suits.
    One of the big questions was if Perry would be protected, not because he went to someone's aide but because of when it went into effect. That leads me to believe that it would have protected him had the incident occurred after the law went in.

    USPSA # L3344 - CRO
    Vice President - East Ascension Practical Shooters
    Board Member - Louisiana Shooting Association

    Become a Site Donor or Advertiser

    Quote Originally Posted by speedracer
    as long as a B-27 silhoutte breaks into your house and stands still exactly 15yds away you'll have no problem protecting yourself and your family.

  17. #17
    εξέγερση επικείμενη

    Gold Member
    Hitman's Avatar
    Here's another website that should be booked mark.

    LA Deadly Force legislation is on the front page.

    http://louisianacarry.org/laws/index.htm
    __________________________________________________


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    ~Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.~ Ernest Hemingway

    < Get Yours HERE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •