CRAZY true story with hypthetical question.

[blackened1313]

Around 1999 I lived at 5460 Canal Blvd in NOLA. Me and my girlfriend at the time left at around 6pm to go to dinner. Upon arrival at our residence from dinner, I put the key in the door, opened it and someone had put the chain lock on the door from the inside-at this point I knew someone had broken into my house. I had no firearms at this time so I entered the residence, like an idiot with a 2x4 and cleared the house room by room. After not finding anything missing or anyone home, we stopped worrying about it and started watching a movie.
While sitting on the sofa, I noticed the pull down attic door was partially open, so I grabbed a flashlight and went into the attic and in the darkness a man jumped on me. After a brief struggle, I wrestled him off me and jumped out of the attic and closed the door. We ran out the house, called the police. The police arrived about ten minutes later!. The guy kicked his way out of the attic on top the roof and jumped to the roof next door where he was cornered by me and my friends and then arrested. The guy turned out to be the son of the owner of Venezia's rest. and not much happened to him.

He scared me so bad I probably would have shot him in the attic. Would that have been justified?

It took me a year to go back to sleep after that also. It messed with my head for awhile. 100% true story.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Dude jumps on me in my attic? I fear for mine and my family's life......

 

[firefighter9158]

Yes, You did have the right to shoot him ! I hope you NOW own a FIREARM.

 

[blackened1313]

Yes, You did have the right to shoot him ! I hope you NOW own a FIREARM.

Yes many! lol. But oddly enough this wasn't the reason for my purchases.

 

[blackened1313]

Dude jumps on me in my attic? I fear for mine and my family's life......

I kinda think I would have been justified. I just always wondered because I guess I really didnt have to go into the attic. We could have left and called police.

 

[honestlou]

It depends on what you mean by "justified". Under current law you would be completely within the law to shoot and kill this intruder in your home. Even in 1999 you would very likely to have been found acting in self defense, as you do not have a duty to retreat in Louisiana. But both then and now you would end up in a world of crap, dealing with the civil litigation and emotional aspects of having killed a
person when you easily could have avoided doing so.

I assume you meant "legally justified", as in not being found guilty of a homicicide, but I wanted to point out hat there is a lot more to the decision to use deadly force.

 

[S&W4ME]

I don't see where he would have been guilty in civil court either. BG breaks into his home. He confronts BG in his attic. BG attacks him. He shoots BG in self defense. Pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[CloudStrife]

It depends on what you mean by "justified". Under current law you would be completely within the law to shoot and kill this intruder in your home. Even in 1999 you would very likely to have been found acting in self defense, as you do not have a duty to retreat in Louisiana. But both then and now you would end up in a world of crap, dealing with the civil litigation and emotional aspects of having killed a
person when you easily could have avoided doing so.

I assume you meant "legally justified", as in not being found guilty of a homicicide, but I wanted to point out hat there is a lot more to the decision to use deadly force.

I don't see how he could have easily avoided it. What if the guy was armed or got the upper hand when they were wrestling? He was lucky that the guy was just some chump.

As for shooting someone legally, if they're in your house, you can whack them. You can even shoot them in the back. You don't know what they're intent is or if they are armed, so it is most definitely self defense.

 

[jimdana1942]

I would have called the LEO before entering the house when you realized that someone was inside because the chain latch was on. I can see it now, you're in court for offing the guy and they ask you why did you go in when you realized someone was more than likely inside? They mighta got you on that one.

 

[Bayoupiper]

Say they did call the cops before entering the house and the BG did a great job of hiding and the cops did a poor job of searching.

He still gets jumped later by aforementioned BG.

.

 

[SpeedRacer]

It depends on what you mean by "justified". Under current law you would be completely within the law to shoot and kill this intruder in your home. Even in 1999 you would very likely to have been found acting in self defense, as you do not have a duty to retreat in Louisiana. But both then and now you would end up in a world of crap, dealing with the civil litigation and emotional aspects of having killed a
person when you easily could have avoided doing so.

I assume you meant "legally justified", as in not being found guilty of a homicicide, but I wanted to point out hat there is a lot more to the decision to use deadly force.

He would have been 100% justified in shooting the intruder. Also, there is a law on the books now that prevents any civil suits if the DA doesn't press charges. So if you are justified in a self-defense shooting, you are immune to any civil law suits related to the case.

You are correct about dealing with emotional aspects though, but I'd much rather deal emotionally with shooting a criminal than deal with my family being harmed. I'd bet if you ask anyone who has ever resorted to deadly force to protect themselves and/or their loved ones, none of them would regret what happened.

Bottom line is, if someone is in your home, they are a threat. DO NOT HESITATE to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself. You should be focused on your front sight, not civil suits and emotional stress.

 

[honestlou]

This is the law you are referring to:

§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.


And it does not "prevent any civil suits". It does state that the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, etc., if the court finds that the defendant is immune....
So you pay your attorney to defend the civil suit, and if you win, you can get an award, or judgment against the plaintiff for your costs. Then what? I'm guessing that the plaintiff is not likely to be someone with adequate assets to enforce your judgment.

As for the emotional aspects, if I ever need to use force to defend myself or others, there is no question that this is not of concern. In the case at hand, he could have, and did eventually, call the cops.

The point is that a shooting can be 100% legally justifiable, and still cause you a great deal of problems. I personally would not want to deal with the aftermath of killing someone in my attic. If I get home in the afternoon and there are signs that someone is in my house, I can legally go in to investigate and pretty much shoot any intruders. I highly recommend against that course of action.

 

[honestlou]

I don't see where he would have been guilty in civil court either. BG breaks into his home. He confronts BG in his attic. BG attacks him. He shoots BG in self defense. Pretty cut and dry to me.

I'm not saying he would lose in a civil trial. See the above post. I'm just saying that he would be better off in the long run by leaving and calling the cops. Which is what eventually happened anyway.

 

[honestlou]

Say they did call the cops before entering the house and the BG did a great job of hiding and the cops did a poor job of searching.

He still gets jumped later by aforementioned BG.

.

And if my aunt had a **** she'd be my uncle.

Seriously, that would be a different situation. The point is that it may be wiser to avoid a confrontation if you can. If you cannot, then it is a completely different scenario.

 

[mct601]

In that particular situation in MY home, the guy would have been shot. Hindsight is 20/20. and it ended well for him this time. But at the time you do not know that, or much else. I wouldn't risk it.

 

[Ben Segrest]

I would have called the LEO before entering the house when you realized that someone was inside because the chain latch was on. I can see it now, you're in court for offing the guy and they ask you why did you go in when you realized someone was more than likely inside? They mighta got you on that one.

How about "Because it's MY F****** HOUSE."

 

[SirIsaacNewton]

Can I call you Hacksaw Jim....

 

[Paintball]

Reminds me of the joke about the guy robbing a convenience store with a 2x4.

Bad Guy goes up to clerk with a 2x4 in hand and tells him to empty the register. The clerk said man you can’t rob nobody with a 2x4! The BG commences to beat the clerk severely with the 2x4. Clerk shaking and bleeding reaches into the register and empties out the tray. BG turns to walk out and the clerk says wait a minute. The clerk then reaches under the tray and gives the BG the hundred dollar bills from underneath and tells BG go buy yourself a gun….you’re going to kill someone with that 2x4!


Glad you and your family ended up okay, and glad you have a gun now for protection.

 

[oleheat]

You're a lucky guy....Thank God you got broken into by a idiotic spoiled brat (from what it sounds like). He's very lucky, as well. That's a very dangerous game he chose to play.....

 

[Nolacopusmc]

How about "Because it's MY F****** HOUSE."

That will work well for you in court.

your right, but you would be wrong.