I don't see where our opinions are at odds with each other.
On whether the extension phase relates to possession of a weapon or use of deadly force. Obviously two separate issues. That is what I meant.
I don't see where our opinions are at odds with each other.
On whether the extension phase relates to possession of a weapon or use of deadly force. Obviously two separate issues. That is what I meant.
You're reaching here. The possession of a weapon and the use of deadly force go hand in hand.
Agree. I believe earlier you said the phase related only to possession of a weapon. Sooooo....yeah.
Yes, I said that in the context of someone suggesting the phrase related to sex in a car. I find it interesting to think someone would interpret that statement to mean you could legally be allowed to possess a weapon in a specific situation but could not legally use that weapon in that situation to defend yourself against a deadly threat.
Agree. Can’t think of an instance where you wouldn’t legally be able to use a weapon you possess. I think the reason for that is probably Louisiana’s laws outlining what a justifiable homecide is (our law clerk does not have the reference right his sec)....and we come full circle as to what does my house have to do with it. Are we talking about conditions to what is a justifiable homecide? Are the conditions exactly the same as my home? If still yes, the. Why did we have the separate car jacker law to make it a crime of violence? If that law makes the situations exactly the same why isn’t it the extension of your home law? Does the extension phase pre date that? My questions are serious. Hopefully after 9 pages I’ve shown, other than being argumentative, I have a reasonable grasp of the laws that affect me here in LA. If so, the. It doesn’t seem like I’m reaching much with my dislike of the phrase and my disagreement with both it’s use and and defense of it’s use.
Google The name Merrit Landry if you don’t know the name. I don’t know the guy or anyone that does. His situation a few years ago here in New Orleans was certainly thought provoking on this topic. No extension of the home phraseology used I’m aware of. I dont bring it up so that we can debate his case, but merely to illustrate the bigger picture of the knowing the your rights as they pertain to use of deadly force/justifiable homecide. The Landry situation also shows how sticky one of these situations can be. I would say to everyone reading this thread to be an advocate for everyone to be armed with knowledge and anything else appropriate.
So does that mean that your yard is an extention of your home?
Do you 'dwell' in your house or yard?
It's interesting that you picked that case as I do not need to google the name. I was a detective with NOPD at the time and was one of the first officers to make that scene.
Whoa. You really know the story then. I guess I have some more insight on how you formed your opinions then.
If you feel comfortable answering, do you feel the *dwelling* verbiage in the law would keep a DA from bringing charges in a similar case. I’m asking specifically about someone inside a high walled, gated property breaking into a car right outside the main home door. That is basically the scenario as I remember it.
Asking for a friend.
Yep. Copy all that on the Landry case. That is as I remember it.
Let me ask a different way. In a hypothetical situation when a not so friendly fellow breaks into your home proper, most people agree if you use deadly force on that not so friendly fellow, you don’t have too much answering to do to John Q Law. If the same fellow is breaking into your car while you occupy it...we have at least a couple laws that favor the law abiding citizen if a deadly force even happens. How about in tweener land in the yard of my small high walled, gated *dwelling*? No reaching for a gun, no articulating fear of my life. Just there in my *dwelling* of my high walled yard and burglarizing my stuff.
Naturally I’m curious on how your thoughts would relate to our dead horse phrase.