Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Let's Have a Discussion About Self-Defense

#epic

LOL

I carry everyday and pray everyday that I never have to draw my pistol.

From a practical standpoint do not go to stupid places at stupid times with stupid people. This will keep you out of trouble almost all of the time.

From an attorney's website in Louisiana. Number one is important to pay special attention to:

To justifiably use self-defense by law, four elements must be proven:

1) The attack must be unprovoked.
2) There must be an imminent injury or death.
3) There must be a reasonable degree of force used against you or a loved one.
4) There must be a reasonable fear of injury.

Louisiana statutes:

R.S 14:19. Use of force or violence in defense

A.(1) The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable under either of the following circumstances:

(a) When committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense.

(b)(i) 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) when the conflict began, 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 using the force or violence reasonably believes that the use of force or violence is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(ii) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person using the force or violence is engaged, at the time of the use of force or violence 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.

(2) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

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 force or violence 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 the force or violence 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 force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.



RS 14:20. 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) when the conflict began, 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 dwelling, place of business, 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 dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, 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.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.

The laws on use of deadly force are so ambiguous, and confusing, in most States, that it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who believes what most people are calling a good shooting, from the evidence, but finds it being prosecuted to the max by the DA.

As for protecting someone else from serious or deadly force ~ aside from a friend or family member. You better know the full circumstances of the situation, by seeing the start or the confrontation, not coming into it during the middle or end. You can easily end up shooting the good guy.

Maybe that’s why society has become a place where cell phones get pulled out before a firearm...If you don’t know the entire situation, maybe being a great witness is a good idea.

With the above said...I’ll face a jury for a friend or loved one. Not for a stranger, unless I know 100% what is happening before my eyes.

YMMV

🦫

And again, the prosecution was successful in quashing Arbery's criminal past and the fact that Arbery was targeting the neighborhood for many months and had an arrest record detailing his criminal past. The McMichael's had prior knowledge of this, had strong suspicion that Arbery was the perp and in the face of the facts was within their rights to attempt a Citizen's Arrest - which at the time was perfectly legal in Georgia.

Unfortunately for the McMichael's they picked the wrong decade to exercise their rights to protect themselves and property and unfortunately had a moron videoing the episode.

...and she may be a stranger with a knife trying to rob him.

Bruce

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the DA. They can make or break the outcome of ANY and EVERY shooting - righteous or otherwise.

That and the media surfing on the backs of social media idiots who are trying to sway public and political opinion on what is a crime versus a legal shoot.

🦫

Yeah keep all that horseschit bouncing around the inside of your head while your heart rate is sitting at 160.

LOL

In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob is a good read on this subject.

Some of you might have read 260 Remington's account in another thread about his home invasion when he actually had to fire his firearm when the kid pointed a handgun at him. It ended as well as it could have under the circumstances, but it still cost him 10K in lawyers fees to defend himself in civil court. If you haven't been in that situation yourself like I have, you don't think clearly at a time like that. When I was talking with the detective at 2:00 in the morning, he said that I would have been fully justified in using deadly force against the three assailants who came in and intended to rob our house. He said the Castle Doctrine would apply in my case. Easy for him to say, but he wouldn't have been the one paying the lawyer. I got 14 stitches, the justice department paid my hospital bill and the kid paid $1,400. in restitution. The kid got 4 years in jail, years of probation and a record after the police dog caught one of them. The judge told him that he was lucky when he ran when they heard me racking the slide on my 1911. Thank God that I didn't need to shoot, but I would have and it wouldn't have ended nearly as well for either of us.

If you're listening to anything Massad Ayboob has to say, you're about 10K steps in the wrong direction.

They were idiots. Real simple. Made a stupid decision and now they're paying the price. Should've minded their own [bleep] business, unless the guy was robbing their house.
Good rule of thumb, Anything you're doing in public, go ahead and assume you're being recorded.
Another good rule of thumb, don't bring a pistol to a fist fight. That wasn't a situation that would ever demand deadly force, so why go it into it in a manner that could lead to it. Kick his ass or get your ass kicked, if you're not up for either outcome, stay in the truck.

Yea Deflave don't be up on the law ànd and don't read experts opinions. You seem to have the one sentence jabs. Since you have all the answers why don't you inlighten us on this Subject. Oh and lets not forget. LOL

Ask a question and I will answer.

Who are you referring to?

The McMichael's

Simplicity is a prerequisite of reliability. Define your goal, family protector or defender of the universe. Have a plan that you can actually execute w/out fail, practice the plan until you have proved that it works to accomplish your goal.

Ignore Clausewitz, Tyson and Ayoob. Failure to plan is planning to fail. Practice, practice, practice. He who hesitates is lost.


mike r

Oh.

Yeah, don't do that.

LOL

Please post the Statue from your, or any State that requires any police officer to get involved in a crime being committed in their presence.

Good advice Mike although knowing the legal ramifications and being read on "experts" can't hurt. But an experts addvice shouldn't interfer with your own situation practice is essentiel the use of deadly force to protect ones family is a legal/moral and personal décision. Good thread Mike.

Our resident Southern Florida Oracle has spoken.