What is the legal situation here (video)?

[barbarossa]

This was posted in the Off Topic section, and it made me very curious about the legal situation here. Synopsis: home owner's security camera records three armed would be intruders outside a glass door, barking dogs inside the house keep them from entering. Nobody is in the home.

Here's the video:

http://www.wwltv.com/video?id=134623348&sec=554827


Say, hypothetically, the home owner had been inside the house. Barking dogs alert him. He grabs a weapon and goes to investigate. Enters room and sees clearly armed guys outside his glass door. Would he be in a self defense situation at this point? Would he be justified in opening fire?

I just don't know the answer, maybe some of you folks knowledgeable in the law could comment on this.


Thanks!

 

[Speedlace]

RS 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.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

 

[barbarossa]

So I read that to mean opening fire would be justified in the above mentioned hypothetical situation. Correct?

 

[SpeedRacer]

If they were inside, it's justified. If the homeowner was outside, it's justified. I don't see why a 1/4" piece of glass would make a difference. A threat is a threat, and a glass door is shitty cover.

 

[OneStory]

If they were inside, it's justified. If the homeowner was outside, it's justified. I don't see why a 1/4" piece of glass would make a difference. A threat is a threat, and a glass door is shitty cover.

DITTO.

 

[Ben Segrest]

(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.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[jimdana1942]

What if the good guy shot the bad guys and the BG's only had water guns?

 

[Storm52]

Bad guys were idiots and shooting was even more justifiable.

 

[pmac81]

What if the good guy shot the bad guys and the BG's only had water guns?

IMHO if the BG's are carrying water guns in such a way that they could be perceived as lethal weapons, sucks to be them. I would... and to paraphrase some of the law here.... reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry and compel them to kick rocks down the road, as was previously mentioned, a glass door makes for shitty cover and if you try to come into my home even with water guns, shame on you, in a high stress situation, a water gun can easily be mistaken for a lethal weapon, and if someone is going to try to break in a house, in south Louisiana, using water guns as intimidation well some people just need to be taken out of the gene pool, just my .02

 

[SpeedRacer]

What if the good guy shot the bad guys and the BG's only had water guns?

If they were presenting them as deadly weapons, doesn't change anything. Police have been justified in shooting perps pointing cell phones, water sprayers, etc at them.

Which in this case is actually irrelevant, since it doesn't matter if the intruders have ANY weapon at all.

 

[Leonidas]

".......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......."

Seems to be the operative phrase.
A credible threat of harm is assault.

 

[#1bambam]

Step out and let them see the muzzle of your 74 and if they start to do anything but flee do a bumpfiredump........Just kiddidng Id call 911 and hope the dogs were enough to keep them out.

 

[Yrdawg]

".......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......."

Seems to be the operative phrase.
A credible threat of harm is assault.

yesir..thats always the bottom line, and is it reasonable to others, IMO CHP classes could just teach this and leave all the legal hoo hah lie.

 

[leVieux]

Once the perp pointed his weapon at the dog, I thought he was going to shoot it. Homeowner shouldn't have to wait until perp acutally fires into home, should he ?

 

[barbarossa]

Which in this case is actually irrelevant, since it doesn't matter if the intruders have ANY weapon at all.

Really? You would be justified shooting unarmed guys looking through your glass door? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, just wanting to understand/learn.

As far as "intruders", were they? They didn't break it.

 

[Tboy]

As far as "intruders", were they? They didn't break it.

From the video I saw they were attempting to gain entry. One of the guys was messing with the door. According to the law (as i read it) armed or not it, it would have been justified.

 

[762NATO]

Legal? Yes, according to RS 14:20. Smart on the side of the would-be assailants, especially in Louisiana? Heck naw.
Doesn't castle doctrine cover this as well?

 

[1911defender]

Let's first define "legal" vs "practical."

In this case, a District Attorney might want the homeowner to prove intent if the homeowner engages the BGs from cover, without a declared verbal warning, since the BGs were just standing around the door looking in. I didn't see the BGs rattle the doorknob, smash glass, etc. All are actions that would display intent. So... if you were to engage from cover, it's wise to shout something like..."I'm inside this home and I'm armed. I WILL shoot you unless you leave NOW!" This covers you from the "legal" and "practical" standpoint. Without the warning, firing from cover complicates your situation.

Now, lets take this a step further. If, as you say, you arm yourself and appear at the door, and the BGs don't flee, you can reasonabaly assume they intend to engage in combat and you have the right to protect yourself. With or Without the verbal...fire away.

However, keep in mind that a left leaning, bleeding heart DA can cause you all sorts of legal grief whatever the situation. So...choose your words carefully when dealing with the investigating officers. Also remember the old addage...."Dead men tell no tales"

 

[Leonidas]

However, keep in mind that a left leaning, bleeding heart DA can cause you all sorts of legal grief whatever the situation. So...choose your words carefully when dealing with the investigating officers. Also remember the old addage...."Dead men tell no tales"

Yes, your carefully chosen words should be this exact quote. "I am eager to cooperate with your investigation with advice of my Counsel."
Any lawyer, including 1st year law students (even including the DA, if he were to speak honestly) will tell you. Do not speak to the police without representation. They have practice with these situations; you DON'T.

 

[Emperor]

Bad guys were idiots and shooting was even more justifiable.

"I like they way you think! I am going to be watching you!" - Professor Turgess (Sam Kenison) / Back to School