After much discussion in another thread about the nuances of justifiable homicide, I wanted to say something of more general concern. In discussing the application of the presumption provided in Part B of LA R.S. 14:20, I am reminded of some discussions I've had about religion. Even if you don't believe in God, it doesn't hurt, and is probably a good idea, to you live your life as though God exists.
To the point at hand, LA R.S. 14:20 (B) provides a presumption of reasonable belief that force was necessary when you are in your home, auto, or business and there has been an unlawful and forcible entry, etc. There is some disagreement as to whether or not that presumption is absolute, or whether it is rebuttable. Whether or not you feel that this presumption is rebuttable, I don't think it hurts, and it's probably a good idea, to act as though it is rebuttable.
In many situations, you may have every legal right to shoot someone, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. In my classes I always point out that there can be severe consequences-- legal, financial, and emotional consequences, to even the most 'righteous' shooting. To paraphrase the Duke: "Never shoot anyone who doesn't need shooting!'
To the point at hand, LA R.S. 14:20 (B) provides a presumption of reasonable belief that force was necessary when you are in your home, auto, or business and there has been an unlawful and forcible entry, etc. There is some disagreement as to whether or not that presumption is absolute, or whether it is rebuttable. Whether or not you feel that this presumption is rebuttable, I don't think it hurts, and it's probably a good idea, to act as though it is rebuttable.
In many situations, you may have every legal right to shoot someone, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. In my classes I always point out that there can be severe consequences-- legal, financial, and emotional consequences, to even the most 'righteous' shooting. To paraphrase the Duke: "Never shoot anyone who doesn't need shooting!'