Lethal force to protect property?

[tallguy606]

A guy in Montana had his garage burglarized. So he set a trap, left garage door half open, valuable items in plain sight. He told his barber days before he was tired of getting ripped off and was going to kill the next burglar. He put in motion sensor lights. Middle of the night, the lights go on, guy gets his shotgun, shoots a teenager fatally in the garage. The shooter just got 10 years in prison for homicide. I thought it was an established principle that you can't kill someone over property, must be a threat of physical harm to you to use lethal force. But some other people are saying in some states, you CAN defend your property with lethal force. Do states have different laws on this basic situation? What is Louisiana law?

 

[US Infidel]

Some states do allow lethal force to protect property. La does not. He should never have told anyone of his intentions.

 

[JBP55]

Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 14:20

§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.

 

[dougstump]

When I was down at Homestead AFB, a guy in South Miami wired the burglar bars at his business to a spare 240V breaker & fried the next burglar. He was convicted, if I remember correctly, of manslaughter.

 

[3fifty7]

You can't hunt over bait!

 

[bsoileau24]

You can't hunt over bait!

This !!!!!!

 

[dougstump]

You can't hunt over bait!

Yes. The whole story was quite shocking. (hope ya got a charge out of that)

 

[oleheat]

Not in Louisiana, because the laws covering this we currently have in place are just so damned effective.

 

[Emperor]

A guy in Montana had his garage burglarized. So he set a trap, left garage door half open, valuable items in plain sight. He told his barber days before he was tired of getting ripped off and was going to kill the next burglar. He put in motion sensor lights. Middle of the night, the lights go on, guy gets his shotgun, shoots a teenager fatally in the garage. The shooter just got 10 years in prison for homicide. I thought it was an established principle that you can't kill someone over property, must be a threat of physical harm to you to use lethal force. But some other people are saying in some states, you CAN defend your property with lethal force. Do states have different laws on this basic situation? What is Louisiana law?

Too many people want to forget that there was a reason these homeowners were brought together with the persons they killed. Oh, that's right! The persons they killed were breaking the law!

And while I don't want these "trappers" to get away with their killings, I also don't want the outpouring of sympathy for the victims to overshadow the fact they are dead as a consequence of a choice they themselves made.

How many people would commit simple burglary if they were quite certain it could result in their own death?

 

[dougstump]

How many people would commit simple burglary if they were quite certain it could result in their own death?

Probably quite a few. Once.

 

[Hermit]

He not only set a trap, he told a whole buncha people he was doing it.
He sunk himself before he fired a shot.

 

[oleheat]

Wellllll.....

I don't see how ANYONE has faith that these types of crimes will ever diminish to a tolerable level as long as the criminals know (AND THEY DO KNOW) that the victims have more to lose than they do when it comes to laws being broken.

A guy who's working on his 47th arrest will probably never get around to "turning the other cheek".

 

[madwabbit]

I've got unique opinions on this, and they aren't favorable on the bayouramboshooter forum.

Animals and low life scumbags kill people over "stuff", period. If you'd take a life over your truck stereo or the crap in your garage, you've got issues that need sortin'

 

[charlie12]

Wasn't there a guy back in the early 80's in Broadmoor that rigged up a .44mag at his back door to get a burglar and got him?

 

[MTregre]

Some states do allow lethal force to protect property. La does not. He should never have told anyone of his intentions.

But this says, and I interpret is as such. I guess it truly comes down to the definition of property...?

(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.

 

[alpinehyperlite]

But this says, and I interpret is as such. I guess it truly comes down to the definition of property...?

(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.

.

 

[US Infidel]

.

 

[Judge Mental]

Wasn't there a guy back in the early 80's in Broadmoor that rigged up a .44mag at his back door to get a burglar and got him?

Yes, in Redoaks s/d. Convicted iirc. The trapper just left the kid on his back porch. If he had buried the evidence we may never have heard this story

 

[charlie12]

Yes, in Redoaks s/d. Convicted iirc. The trapper just left the kid on his back porch. If he had buried the evidence we may never have heard this story

Yep that was it.

 

[MTregre]

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.

right, I'm not sure why making some text bold seems to provide anyone with any clarification or answer. In this case, I think we can all agree that this guy had intentions beyond self defense. He wanted to prove the point he had in his head. BUT in action of preventing entry or compelling one to leave said premises, does seem like property protection. Like I said, I guess its all dependent on some definitions (which I am interested in). I know none of us here, at least I think, are attorneys or providing legal direction. But, where is the separation between protecting property as "the guy placed his hands on my can of tuna" and "reasonable expectation that the intruder was going to cause harm to property"? Or does property simply not matter, life and illegal entry only? Legal jumbo confuses me most times.