Remember the Mandeville Shooting Incident with the Instructor?

[3fifty7]

That $20 I donated for the melted Glock has saved me a lot of money. I've learned to ask questions before donating money.

Ah the lessons learned on BS


Sent via telegraph with the same fingers I use to sip whiskey

 

[DAVE_M]

If you were trying to stick your pecker on a conductor bar I would advise otherwise.

You need help.

 

[sliguns]

If you were trying to stick your pecker on a conductor bar I would advise otherwise.

 

[oleheat]

No rainbows and cupcakes here.

OC dude learned why OC is stupid, real quick.

Yeah.

So based on current LA law, can he be sued, or not?

 

[JR1572]

Yeah.

So based on current LA law, can he be sued, or not?

Oleheat, I don't see any provision in RS 14:20 granting any type of civil immunity. I'm still checking other laws.


§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.

JR1572

 

[Dave328]

See, I thought Louisiana law regarding civil suits over self-defense shootings had been changed following the George Temple case from around 10 years back- but I could be wrong.....

Ya know, this sounds real familiar to me as well. Something along the lines of no charges = no civil, but charges, win or lose = BOHICA

 

[JR1572]

§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.

JR1572

 

[Magdump]

That $20 I donated for the melted Glock has saved me a lot of money. I've learned to ask questions before donating money.

Hahaha! I remember that guy!

As to the OP's question, any reasonable person with half a brain, being in the situation the instructor was in, likely would not wait for an indictment to fall before seeking council, which costs money. A simple retainer could entail a serious amount of money. Any idea how much that go fund me account topped off at?

 

[chootem]

That's why I didn't understand why everyone was donating money before he was charged. I also asked if he ever got a lawyer and who advised him to get a lawyer and don't think anyone ever gave a straight answer.

That $20 I donated for the melted Glock has saved me a lot of money. I've learned to ask questions before donating money.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whitebread]

You need help.

Yeah I'm a little twisted but I wouldn't let you roast your willy.

 

[oleheat]

§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.

JR1572

Thanks for finding that.

The "or property" phrase in Part A is a bit curious. Lol

Bottom line: Better be damn sure.....

 

[JR1572]

Thanks for finding that.

The "or property" phrase in Part A is a bit curious. Lol

Bottom line: Better be damn sure.....

Peep this out:


§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.

JR1572

 

[ta2d_cop]

§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.

JR1572

Time will tell if any of this saves me from another deposition
I can deal with criminal court but civil suits are some bull crap. We got till mid April '17 so we shall see. Last I heard the family had come to terms with the situation after release of the video and the DAs decision to accept the determination of the investigation. That, of course, does not preclude them from filing a civil suit against the shooter and investigators. I would imagine any suit filed would not make it past summary judgement based on the facts of the case as I know them.

BTW, didn't see anyone setting up a collection for the legal defense fund of the investigators that cleared the shooter

 

[JR1572]

BTW, didn't see anyone setting up a collection for the legal defense fund of the investigators that cleared the shooter

I wouldn't sweat it. Your agency is so rich they'll pick up your defense tab and issue you a Rolex.

JR1572

 

[ta2d_cop]

I wouldn't sweat it. Your agency is so rich they'll pick up your defense tab and issue you a Rolex.

JR1572

I'd like a Rolex . I got dat PBA too, so it's covered.

 

[AustinBR]

If I set up a gofundme for my college costs (books, ammo, case studies, more ammo, pens, and maybe a new knife) would any of you people donate? :]

 

[oleheat]

If I set up a gofundme for my college costs (books, ammo, case studies, more ammo, pens, and maybe a new knife) would any of you people donate? :]

Think they'd be onto us if we all got together and created the "Gogunme" website to raise funds for....well, you get the idea....

 

[ta2d_cop]

If I set up a gofundme for my college costs (books, ammo, case studies, more ammo, pens, and maybe a new knife) would any of you people donate? :]

Isn't this site kinda like a side gig gofundme deal for you anyway?!? You don't actually herd all the cats for free do you?!?!?

 

[DAVE_M]

Isn't this site kinda like a side gig gofundme deal for you anyway?!? You don't actually herd all the cats for free do you?!?!?

Ohhhhhh, even I felt that one

 

[jmcrawf1]

I wouldn't sweat it. Your agency is so rich they'll pick up your defense tab and issue you a Rolex.

JR1572

I LOL'd