Your Right To Use Deadly Force Against Home Intruders Has Been Limited by La. Court

[dawg23]

.
In response to a request posted in the "SB 303 thread, I'm starting a new thread to explain the comments I posted there.

Could you please elaborate, this is the first I am hearing of this. What exactly does it change? Perhaps a new thread?
many thanks

My response:

As a long time member of the NRA, I'm waiting on NRA80 (who posts here on a frequent basis whenever he needs support for an issue that the NRA is sponsoring) to explain the NRA's stance (or lack of one).

While we're waiting for him to reply, you can read the appellate court opinion at this link (which was also provided in post # 6). http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110622_0000638.LA.htm/qx

Summary of Events: Former wife drives through the front yard of the home occupied by ex-husband and new wife, stopping 15 feet from the front door, and barges into the home. Ex-wife physically attacks the new wife. Ex-husband calls 9-1-1, and ends up shooting and killing the ex-wife. The court has ruled that this was excessive force because the intruder was a woman and was unarmed (On the 9-1-1 tape, the husband answers, "Not that I know of" when asked by the dispatcher if the intruder is armed). The court then affirmed the sentence of 28 years in prison.

I am not an attorney. But I am of the opinion, as are several attorneys who have read the ruling, that the court has essentially re-written the portion of Louisiana's Justifiable Homicide statute that pertains to home defense.

Louisiana has long had one of the strongest home defense laws in the U.S. In Louisiana, when you are outside your home, car or place of business, our statutes say you have to explain//justify why you felt deadly force was necessary ("reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm"). BUT when you are inside your home, car or place of business, this requirement has never been a part of our justifiable homicide statute. Essentially, up until this court ruling, all you had to prove was that you were lawfully in the home, and you were aware that the intruder had unlawfully entered your home.

Now this court ruling has added another requirement -- your use of force must be "reasonable."

So based on this ruling, if an intruder enters your home at 2:00 in the morning, you must now be able to determine if the attacker is armed, assess the size//strength of the intruder relative to your size//strength, and then you must determine how much force is appropriate............. or risk going to prison for 28 years like the defendant in this case.

This is, in the opinion of numerous learned reviewers (that lets me out ), means that our home intruder self-defense laws have now been seriously weakened -- unless someone (like the NRA ??) agrees to help appeal this to a higher court, or unless someone (like the NRA or LSA ??) get involved to revise (strengthen) the statute (La. R.S. 14:20) and delete the "rubuttable presumption" loophole upon which the appeals court has hung it's hat (while they were also hanging the defendant).

The NRA has repeatedly argued it's support for SB 303, citing the need to prevent potential, theoretical, future attacks on our rights to keep and bear arms. They have been very quiet about this ruling (publicly, at least). There's nothing theoretical about this ruling -- it has truly weakened the self defense rights of home invaders.

In this case the husband had the right to own a gun. But according this this ruling, he didn't have the right to use it.

 

[Captain_Morgan]

Seems to me that he could have justified his actions out of fear of bodily harm to his current wife regardless of any danger to himself. WTF? I hope he's able to appeal and win.

 

[Leadfoot]

So based on this ruling, if an intruder enters your home at 2:00 in the morning, you must now be able to determine if the attacker is armed, assess the size//strength of the intruder relative to your size//strength, and then you must determine how much force is appropriate............. or risk going to prison for 28 years like the defendant in this case.

The story given and the scenario you just described have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

In the court case, all of the actors were previously known to each other.

It is reasonable to believe that having prior knowledge of someone and their propensity towards violence or to carry a weapon would weigh on your decision or not to use deadly force.

In the home intruder scenario, there are too many unknowns that no reasonable person could be expected to know. I cannot see any court sentencing someone to prison for protecting themselves from an UNKNOWN intuder(s) in the middle of the night.

 

[JBP55]

His former wife physically attacks his current wife with her hands and he uses deadly force? Bad Ju Ju and excessive force.

 

[we.the.people]

His former wife physically attacks his current wife with her hands and he uses deadly force? Bad Ju Ju and excessive force.

The guy was a jockey and she was a race horse maybe..... but yes bad ju ju.

 

[BrandonLSU]

Typically, I believe, you must use judgement in force using the minimal amount to resolve the situation. If, for example, someone is engaged in hand-to-hand combat you cannot use a nuclear weapon to resolve the conflict. You must escalate your use of violence to the amount needed to fit each situation, ultimately someone (district attorney for example) then potentially some people (grand jury for example) will have to decide to prosecute each case of proclaimed self-defense. We must all trust in our historical system of government (the best one, in my opinion, in the history of the world) and hope that no innocent victims are created in the process, which unfortunately happens occasionally. When these circumstances occur, we must then hope that appellate processes succeed to return these people to the freedom that they are entitled.

 

[BrandonLSU]

Also, get to know your candidates for office. This is the best defense against future erosion of our rights. Voting for people who appreciate freedoms, liberty and will stand on their convictions will only make our lives more fulfilling and less oppressed.

 

[CEHollier]

I'm 6'2" 225lbs. If my 5'2" 110lb. wife were to do that a weapon would not be necessary. But that's my just personal instance. Most probably excessive use of force. At 2:00 AM all is dark and an actual strange intruder is in the house. BOOM!

 

[dawg23]

The story given and the scenario you just described have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

In the court case, all of the actors were previously known to each other.

It is reasonable to believe that having prior knowledge of someone and their propensity towards violence or to carry a weapon would weigh on your decision or not to use deadly force.

In the home intruder scenario, there are too many unknowns that no reasonable person could be expected to know. I cannot see any court sentencing someone to prison for protecting themselves from an UNKNOWN intuder(s) in the middle of the night.

Did you actually read the ruling? It was not based on the fact that the participants knew each other.

 

[Gus McCrae]

His former wife physically attacks his current wife with her hands and he uses deadly force? Bad Ju Ju and excessive force.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that this is the case inside your own home.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Did you actually read the ruling? It was not based on the fact that the participants knew each other.

They lost me when they started talking about the different meanings of "presumption" and whether or not the word "rebuttal" came before it. It honestly sounds like a lot of BS..... and I don't mean Bayou Shooter.

 

[Gerberman]

.
In response to a request posted in the "SB 303 thread, I'm starting a new thread to explain the comments I posted there.



My response:

As a long time member of the NRA, I'm waiting on NRA80 (who posts here on a frequent basis whenever he needs support for an issue that the NRA is sponsoring) to explain the NRA's stance (or lack of one).

While we're waiting for him to reply, you can read the appellate court opinion at this link (which was also provided in post # 6). http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110622_0000638.LA.htm/qx

Summary of Events: Former wife drives through the front yard of the home occupied by ex-husband and new wife, stopping 15 feet from the front door, and barges into the home. Ex-wife physically attacks the new wife. Ex-husband calls 9-1-1, and ends up shooting and killing the ex-wife. The court has ruled that this was excessive force because the intruder was a woman and was unarmed (On the 9-1-1 tape, the husband answers, "Not that I know of" when asked by the dispatcher if the intruder is armed). The court then affirmed the sentence of 28 years in prison.

I am not an attorney. But I am of the opinion, as are several attorneys who have read the ruling, that the court has essentially re-written the portion of Louisiana's Justifiable Homicide statute that pertains to home defense.

Louisiana has long had one of the strongest home defense laws in the U.S. In Louisiana, when you are outside your home, car or place of business, our statutes say you have to explain//justify why you felt deadly force was necessary ("reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm"). BUT when you are inside your home, car or place of business, this requirement has never been a part of our justifiable homicide statute. Essentially, up until this court ruling, all you had to prove was that you were lawfully in the home, and you were aware that the intruder had unlawfully entered your home.

Now this court ruling has added another requirement -- your use of force must be "reasonable."

So based on this ruling, if an intruder enters your home at 2:00 in the morning, you must now be able to determine if the attacker is armed, assess the size//strength of the intruder relative to your size//strength, and then you must determine how much force is appropriate............. or risk going to prison for 28 years like the defendant in this case.

This is, in the opinion of numerous learned reviewers (that lets me out ), means that our home intruder self-defense laws have now been seriously weakened -- unless someone (like the NRA ??) agrees to help appeal this to a higher court, or unless someone (like the NRA or LSA ??) get involved to revise (strengthen) the statute (La. R.S. 14:20) and delete the "rubuttable presumption" loophole upon which the appeals court has hung it's hat (while they were also hanging the defendant).

The NRA has repeatedly argued it's support for SB 303, citing the need to prevent potential, theoretical, future attacks on our rights to keep and bear arms. They have been very quiet about this ruling (publicly, at least). There's nothing theoretical about this ruling -- it has truly weakened the self defense rights of home invaders.

In this case the husband had the right to own a gun. But according this this ruling, he didn't have the right to use it.

Several things about this legally. It can still be taken to the La. Supreme Court and be overturned and also, this is not "law of the land" as there are 4 OTHER Courts of Appeal in Louisiana. The supreme court will take the issue up if it appears there are conflicts among the circuits.

 

[honestlou]

.
In response to a request posted in the "SB 303 thread, I'm starting a new thread to explain the comments I posted there.



My response:

... I am not an attorney. But I am of the opinion, as are several attorneys who have read the ruling, that the court has essentially re-written the portion of Louisiana's Justifiable Homicide statute that pertains to home defense.

Louisiana has long had one of the strongest home defense laws in the U.S. In Louisiana, when you are outside your home, car or place of business, our statutes say you have to explain//justify why you felt deadly force was necessary ("reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm"). BUT when you are inside your home, car or place of business, this requirement has never been a part of our justifiable homicide statute. Essentially, up until this court ruling, all you had to prove was that you were lawfully in the home, and you were aware that the intruder had unlawfully entered your home.

Now this court ruling has added another requirement -- your use of force must be "reasonable." ...

I believe that you are in error as to the history of this requirement. Historically, Louisiana has always had the requirement for a justifiable homicide that the person who committed the homicide be able to show that he held a reasonable fear of losing his life or receiving great bodily injury. Part B of 14:20 was added to enforce the right of self-defense in a home, business, or automobile. It added the language that says if certain conditions are met, there shall be a presumption that the party held this reasonable fear. Section B:

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.

I have always taught my students that the presumption of reasonable belief provided by 14:20 (B) was most likely not absolute, and was in fact a rebuttable presumption. The referenced case is a good illustration and explanation of why that is so. But the case does not 'gut' the law, and only applies it in a reasonable fashion. I'll explain further.

Prior to part B, and currently outside of the circumstances to which it applies, if you use deadly force in self defense, you have the burden of proving that your use of deadly force was reasonable. After part B was enacted, under those specific circumstances, you get the benefit of the presumption, so you no longer have the burden of proving that your actions were reasonable. They are presumed to have been reasonable.

But is this presumption absolute, or is it rebuttable? As the court stated, it is rebuttable. This doesn't mean that it is worthless. Now the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were not reasonable. In the case at hand, the jury found, and the court upheld, that the prosecutor did in fact prove that the defendant's actions were not reasonable. I didn't sit through the trial, but according to the description of the evidence by the court, I would agree with the jury's decision.

Again, this doesn't make the language of part B worthless; but it does show that the presumption of reasonableness is not absolute. And I agree with it. If you do not agree, I would like your decision on the following hypothetical that I present to my students in class:

You arrive home to discover your door has been kicked in--splintered wood, etc. Armed, you enter your home and find a man passed out on your couch. Just to be sure, you review your closed circuit recording, and see that this is the man who kicked in your door, walked around, then laid down on your couch and fell asleep. He is currently snoring. You absolutely know that he has unlawfully and forcibly entered. You walk up to the sleeping intruder and shoot him in the head.

Should the presumption provided be rebuttable, or should it be absolute?

 

[Gus McCrae]

I believe that you are in error as to the history of this requirement. Historically, Louisiana has always had the requirement for a justifiable homicide that the person who committed the homicide be able to show that he held a reasonable fear of losing his life or receiving great bodily injury. Part B of 14:20 was added to enforce the right of self-defense in a home, business, or automobile. It added the language that says if certain conditions are met, there shall be a presumption that the party held this reasonable fear. Section B:

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.

I have always taught my students that the presumption of reasonable belief provided by 14:20 (B) was most likely not absolute, and was in fact a rebuttable presumption. The referenced case is a good illustration and explanation of why that is so. But the case does not 'gut' the law, and only applies it in a reasonable fashion. I'll explain further.

Prior to part B, and currently outside of the circumstances to which it applies, if you use deadly force in self defense, you have the burden of proving that your use of deadly force was reasonable. After part B was enacted, under those specific circumstances, you get the benefit of the presumption, so you no longer have the burden of proving that your actions were reasonable. They are presumed to have been reasonable.

But is this presumption absolute, or is it rebuttable? As the court stated, it is rebuttable. This doesn't mean that it is worthless. Now the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were not reasonable. In the case at hand, the jury found, and the court upheld, that the prosecutor did in fact prove that the defendant's actions were not reasonable. I didn't sit through the trial, but according to the description of the evidence by the court, I would agree with the jury's decision.

Again, this doesn't make the language of part B worthless; but it does show that the presumption of reasonableness is not absolute. And I agree with it. If you do not agree, I would like your decision on the following hypothetical that I present to my students in class:

You arrive home to discover your door has been kicked in--splintered wood, etc. Armed, you enter your home and find a man passed out on your couch. Just to be sure, you review your closed circuit recording, and see that this is the man who kicked in your door, walked around, then laid down on your couch and fell asleep. He is currently snoring. You absolutely know that he has unlawfully and forcibly entered. You walk up to the sleeping intruder and shoot him in the head.

Should the presumption provided be rebuttable, or should it be absolute?

This makes things a little more understandable to what the case was saying. Thanks.

 

[Taiaut]

Appellate courts do not try cases. The Appellate court only affirmed the guilty verdict of the, I'm guessing, District Court. This was likely a case that went on for several days and in no way
can be understood by a couple of paragraphs in a news article. Slow down folks.

 

[geoney]

Dawg23, thanks for taking the time to post this, and Honestlou, thanks for taking the time to respond with what seems like a well articulated argument.

I would love to hear what NRA and LSA have to say on this. How did this slip by us?

 

[dawg23]

I believe that you are in error as to the history of this requirement. Historically, Louisiana has always had the requirement for a justifiable homicide that the person who committed the homicide be able to show that he held a reasonable fear of losing his life or receiving great bodily injury. Part B of 14:20 was added to enforce the right of self-defense in a home, business, or automobile. It added the language that says if certain conditions are met, there shall be a presumption that the party held this reasonable fear. Section B:

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.

I have always taught my students that the presumption of reasonable belief provided by 14:20 (B) was most likely not absolute, and was in fact a rebuttable presumption. The referenced case is a good illustration and explanation of why that is so. But the case does not 'gut' the law, and only applies it in a reasonable fashion. I'll explain further.

Prior to part B, and currently outside of the circumstances to which it applies, if you use deadly force in self defense, you have the burden of proving that your use of deadly force was reasonable. After part B was enacted, under those specific circumstances, you get the benefit of the presumption, so you no longer have the burden of proving that your actions were reasonable. They are presumed to have been reasonable.

But is this presumption absolute, or is it rebuttable? As the court stated, it is rebuttable. This doesn't mean that it is worthless. Now the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were not reasonable. In the case at hand, the jury found, and the court upheld, that the prosecutor did in fact prove that the defendant's actions were not reasonable. I didn't sit through the trial, but according to the description of the evidence by the court, I would agree with the jury's decision.

Again, this doesn't make the language of part B worthless; but it does show that the presumption of reasonableness is not absolute. And I agree with it. If you do not agree, I would like your decision on the following hypothetical that I present to my students in class:

You arrive home to discover your door has been kicked in--splintered wood, etc. Armed, you enter your home and find a man passed out on your couch. Just to be sure, you review your closed circuit recording, and see that this is the man who kicked in your door, walked around, then laid down on your couch and fell asleep. He is currently snoring. You absolutely know that he has unlawfully and forcibly entered. You walk up to the sleeping intruder and shoot him in the head.

Should the presumption provided be rebuttable, or should it be absolute?

I agree with all that you posted -- except the part about agreeing with the ruling. Seriously, I know better than to argue the law with a lawyer, so I won't.

I agree that the shooting in the case at hand was probably excessive -- assuming the shooter truly knew in advance that the attacker was unarmed, and also truly knew that the attacker carried no communicable diseases such as HIV. The Rodney Peairs shooting of Yoshi Hattori was also excessive (as Rodney found out in civil court). But they weren't illegal from a criminal perspective. The DA should be prosecuting based on the law, not what we think is "appropriate" -- or, in this case, what fairly prominent family members thinks should have been done.

The legislature clearly excluded the "reasonable fear" provision from the home/car/place of business statute. Now they need to remove the word "presumption", or insert the term "unrebuttable presumption."

I don't know any of the participants, nor do I know any of their family members. But I do know that the DA's office in BR (one of the more conservative parishes in the state), has been recently quoted in the Baton Rouge Advocate saying they now, based on this case, interpret 14:20 to read "We can use deadly force against an intruder if we "reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises."

We still have a moral and ethical obligation to use restraint where it is warranted. But having to make snap decisions during a home invasion, knowing that we may later be second-guessed by a DA who might be under political pressure, and then possibly having our future rest in the hands of a jury of our "peers' isn't a good situation.

 

[honestlou]

I agree with all that you posted -- except the part about agreeing with the ruling. Seriously, I know better than to argue the law with a lawyer, so I won't.

I agree that the shooting in the case at hand was probably excessive -- assuming the shooter truly knew in advance that the attacker was unarmed, and also truly knew that the attacker carried no communicable diseases such as HIV. The Rodney Peairs shooting of Yoshi Hattori was also excessive (as Rodney found out in civil court). But they weren't illegal from a criminal perspective. The DA should be prosecuting based on the law, not what we think is "appropriate" -- or, in this case, what fairly prominent family members thinks should have been done.

The legislature clearly excluded the "reasonable fear" provision from the home/car/place of business statute. Now they need to remove the word "presumption", or insert the term "unrebuttable presumption."

I don't know any of the participants, nor do I know any of their family members. But I do know that the DA's office in BR (one of the more conservative parishes in the state), has been recently quoted in the Baton Rouge Advocate saying they now, based on this case, interpret 14:20 to read "We can use deadly force against an intruder if we "reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises."

We still have a moral and ethical obligation to use restraint where it is warranted. But having to make snap decisions during a home invasion, knowing that we may later be second-guessed by a DA who might be under political pressure, and then possibly having our future rest in the hands of a jury of our "peers' isn't a good situation.

To be clear, the legislature never did exclude the 'reasonable fear' requirement for justifiable homicide. There still has to be reasonable fear. What changed was that you no longer had the burden of proving you had reasonable fear in those certain circumstances (house, car, etc.). That is now given to you as a presumption. But the D.A. can still attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you in fact did not have a reasonable fear, and the jury in the case at hand agreed that the D.A. did in fact prove this out. What the legislature gave us is still very valuable- I would much rather have the presumption and the D.A. have to disprove it, than have to prove initially that I had a reasonable fear.

I did not see the comments in the Advocate to which you refer, and I have to say that I often see things reported incorrectly. If our D.A. said something to that effect, he may have just been making the point that I just did-- that there is indeed still a requirement of reasonable fear. Or he may have been talking about the shifting burdens and the reporter just missed that nuance. If he clearly meant it the way you quoted it, then I respectfully say that he was simply wrong.

Lastly, I am 100% in favor of maintaining and strengthening our gun rights, and right to self-defense. But I really think that the legislature and court's interpretation are correct, to make the presumption rebuttable. If you don't agree with that, how do you answer the hypothetical that I posed?

You arrive home to discover your door has been kicked in--splintered wood, etc. Armed, you enter your home and find a man passed out on your couch. Just to be sure, you review your closed circuit recording, and see that this is the man who kicked in your door, walked around, then laid down on your couch and fell asleep. He is currently snoring. You absolutely know that he has unlawfully and forcibly entered. You walk up to the sleeping intruder and shoot him in the head.


Many may dismiss it as a ridiculous hypothetical, but I think it clearly frames the issue. And it's not that far-fetched. Last year in BR a young guy came home drunk and was trying to get into what he thought was his house, but he was trying to enter the wrong house. Homeowner heard him at the door, and warned him to stay out, and finally shot him through the door. There was no question of prosecution, and the guy's family even apologized to the homeowner for having put him in that position. But suppose the homeowner hadn't been home, and the guy eventually broke the door or a window to gain entrance, then passed out on the couch-- should the returning homeowner be able to walk in, and shoot the sleeping guy in the head?

 

[dawg23]

To be clear, the legislature never did exclude the 'reasonable fear' requirement for justifiable homicide.

I did not see the comments in the Advocate to which you refer, and I have to say that I often see things reported incorrectly. If he clearly meant it the way you quoted it, then I respectfully say that he was simply wrong.

Lastly, I am 100% in favor of maintaining and strengthening our gun rights, and right to self-defense. But I really think that the legislature and court's interpretation are correct, to make the presumption rebuttable. If you don't agree with that, how do you answer the hypothetical that I posed?

1.

To be clear, the legislature never did exclude the 'reasonable fear' requirement for justifiable homicide.

You're supposed to know, so I won't argue. But a reading of 14:20.A.3 and 14:20.B do not appear to list that as a criterion.

2.

I did not see the comments in the Advocate to which you refer, and I have to say that I often see things reported incorrectly. If he clearly meant it the way you quoted it, then I respectfully say that he was simply wrong.

I spoke with the assistant DA who was quoted in the article, assuming as you have that she was misquoted. She said she wasn't misquoted, and described the appeals court ruling to me, and then emailed me a link to the ruling.

I'll email you a .pdf of the article when I get back to a real computer. Then you can call Hiller Moore and tell him he is mistaken.

3.

Lastly, I am 100% in favor of maintaining and strengthening our gun rights, and right to self-defense. But I really think that the legislature and court's interpretation are correct, to make the presumption rebuttable. If you don't agree with that, how do you answer the hypothetical that I posed?

You're saying you wouldn't shoot the guy on the sofa. You are "presuming" he is really asleep, isn't playing possum, isn't armed, and isn't going to wake up and commit mayhem on your family members.

If he's truly asleep, I wouldn't shoot him either. But there are many scenarios less clear then "dude passed out on sofa." This ruling has added a new criterion, and opens the possibility of criminal prosecution by some overzealous prosecutor (not referring to Hillar) if he were to find himself under political pressure.

You're saying the court ruling is fine because you wouldn't shoot the guy on the sofa. I'm saying it would be tragic, but not illegal, prior to the ruling. The Rodney Peairs shooting was tragic, but not a criminal act.

But I don't want my wife, or any anyone, to hesitate if the sofa dude twitches or rolls over, because he might be pretending to sleep and planning to attack an unwary resident.

Since you're raising hypotheticals, what would happen if the "sofa dude" twitched, rolled over, mumbled in his sleep, whatever, and the homeowner shot him. But the coroner's report shows a high enough level of alcohol or drugs in his system to prove he had to be comatose. Now, under the new standard, the homeowner could find
himself trying to prove that he was in fear despite the findings of the coroner, and could easily end up in prison.

Lawyers are trained to argue either side of an issue (not saying you're doing that) But the appellate panel was clearly reaching for a way to alter the law, much like Justice Roberts did in the Obamacare ruling ("Oh, it's really a tax").

A homeowner who overreacts, like Rodney Peairs, is still exposed to civil suits. I think (as a dumb redneck layman) that the ruling needs to be overturned, or 14:20 needs to now be amended to strengthen "presumption."

 

[oldman45]

While I am trying to stay out of this debate, I have to say the facts in the original post of the lady being killed by her ex husband is somewhat skewed and the total events are not being mentioned, for whatever reason.

Most that are aware of the entire event would vote for him to go to prison. I did not personally know any of the individuals involved but it was news around here since it took place about 25 miles away. The trial was followed by all the media.

There was no reason for the man to even bring a gun into the confrontation.