Weapons, Guns, Firearms Self Defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anty506

New Member
Hi everyone,

My question for you guys today is about self-defense.

Would it be unconstitutional for a state to have a law that says you cannot protect yourself in certain circumstances even if your life is in fact in danger? In Louisiana, under justifiable homicide, there is a line that states the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if you are in these "situations/circumstances"

Is that unconstitutional? Can the second amendment come in to play here, or maybe even the 14th since it states "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" How is it "equal" if the law says that this person can claim justifiable since they were in this situation but this person can't since they were in "that" situation?????

Keep in mind, that we are not deciding if it was self-defense or not, we are trying to decide if the law it self is unconstitutional.

Thanks

 
What are the situations listed? Also, what happened? You don't have to give names, etc, but a bit more detail would help.

Your second amendment rights are the right to bear arms. But that doesn't mean you always have the right to shoot.

In Florida it used to be that people had "a duty to retret" so in other words, if someone pulled a weapon, you were supposed to run, unless you had no other choice. Now, under Stand Your Ground, if you feel in danger for your life or of great bodily harm, you are permitted to use any force including deadly force. In other words, you pull a knife on me, I'm well in my rights to pull my Glock and make you leak. In fact, if you come up to me with a baseball bat, I could do the same.

Wtih that said, I cannot go to Gerogia and do the same.
 
Well, here is the exact statement in the law

(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.

I can't post the link to the full law since i don't have 5 or more post, but you can google LA RS 14:20 and it will be the first link.

Now here is a quick run down of the story.

2 guys went to meet a dealer to buy some weed. The 2 guys meet the dealer on the street and the dealer got in the car with the buyer and the buyers friend and had them drive to a house that the dealer said was his.

They all 3 walked into this house and the buyer gave the dealer the money. The dealer was acting strange and about 2 minutes later, someone came through the back door of the house with an AK-47.

The gunman approached all three men and demanded they empty their pockets. The buyer tried to leave but was stopped with the AK put to him and the gunman then walked him to the back of the house into a dark room and sat him on a bed.

The gunman than walked to the other 2 guys and walked them to the back. He than sat the buyers friend on the bed as well while the dealer stood on side the gunman.

The gunman put the AK to the buyer's head and demanded he empty his pockets. (this part is all caught on an audio recording on someones voicemail as the buyer dialed someones number while he was being walked to the back) The buyer begs for his life and says he has nothing in his pockets and tells the gunman that the money is upfront on the tv where the dealer put it. The gunman gets mad and hits the buyer behind the head with the AK and knocks him off the bed.

The gunman then turns to the buyers friend on the bed and puts the AK to his head.

At this time the buyer comes from off the floor and shots the gunman in the defense of his life as well as his friends.

The buyer, friend and dealer then all run out of the house to a police car that was down the street.

Self-defense is not the question here and the police know that the guys were setup to be robbed and killed as the dealer had setup for the gunman to break into the house to rob and kill the buyer and his friend, and there was no weed found in the house.

Also, the gunman was later to be found the actual homeowner which proves even more that the dealer setup for the 2 guys to be robbed and killed. Why else would anyone break into their own home to rob them?

The only problem standing in the way is the law on Justifiable. The buyer is able to claim justifiable until (4)(b) which states "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."

The police and DA has charged the buyer with 1st degree murder and he was indicted on this charge all because he was there to buy weed and the DA and police stated that he can't claim self-defense(justifiable) since the law says so.

Is this unconstitutional as the guys were being setup to be robbed and killed and that it turned from what they thought was a drug deal to an armed robbery and not to mention, its not like the buyer shot the dealer for some reason, the buyer was protecting the lives of him and his friend.

Thanks
 
Agreed with tpajet about the second amendment.

As far as the 14th:

How is it "equal" if the law says that this person can claim justifiable since they were in this situation but this person can't since they were in "that" situation?????
Click to expand...
Because equality is not blind to circumstance. It's equal because it applies to all persons equally. If person A can claim justifiable homicide in situation X, then person B can claim justifiable homicide in situation X too. If A and B are in different situations, then it is perfectly reasonable for them to be treated differently.

(Disclaimer: the author is not an American.)
 
No need to guess ... here is the law:

§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.

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.​

- Carl
 
Looks like my post was just added. Can you guys read my post above on the situation and give me some info?
 
Anty - I beleive you are misinterperting what the 14th says. It doesn't mean that the law will apply equally to situations, it means the law applys equally to every person.

So, in this case, it would have been unconstitutional if they would charge the buyer, but the seller would be allowed to go free. Since all parties present were involved in the sale of drugs, none of them can claim self defense if someone pulls a gun. So with that regard, the buyer is in fact screwed, and it is qutie constitutional to charge him.
 
I just went and checked on Florida statutes, and the situation you listed wouldn't fly in Florida either. The law can be found here: FLA Stand your ground law

Specifically under home defense it states situations as not authorized to use force:

"The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity"
 
Final question for you guys.

Would it make a difference being that although it was bad timing for the buyer since it was there to buy weed, that there was an armed robbery taking place??? A man broke into the house and it had nothing to do with a drug deal?
 
If a regular drug deal was going down, and someone came up and robbed the parties involved in the drug deal, I could see this being on the fence. I don't think you'd win since the law says you can't if you are buying or selling drugs, but I could see someone at least trying to use that as a defense.

However, in this case I would say it would make absolutly no difference that a drug deal got interupted by a robbery, because as you have said, the gunman was part of the setup. So he was part of the drug deal, even if it wasn't the actual transfer of drugs or money.
 
That is true. Although there really isn't much proof that he was part of the deal or that the dealer used him to rob us, I do understand what you are saying.


Now I want to quote something that I have from Heller's attorney and you tell me if this changes anything.

"There is an inherent right to self-defense, and that right is expressed in part in the Second Amendment. It is unclear whether the court will find a right to self-defense in non-weapons contexts (e.g., does a right to self defense entitle a person to take unapproved medication?)



The right to arms is not limited to the home, heller was very clear about that and I have several cases now making that argument"

District of Columbia vs Heller 2008 made it clear that you do have the right to self-defense.

So wouldn't LA's law be unconstitutional?
 
Of course, I imagine that ADW while in the commission of a felony is still ADW whether for self defense or not.

Your attorney can certainly make that limited claim, but I think the law was put into effect to prevent claims from the survivor of a gun battle between thugs and criminals in claiming self defense.

- Carl
 
So pretty much, you wouldn't have a right to self defense although someone broke into the house to kill them and they just happened to be there to buy weed.

That's just a bad situation!
 
Well, keep in mind that you shouldn't be buying weed to begin wtih. Anything can go wrong wit a drug deal. But regardless, as I said, in this case the gunman was part of the deal. So it's not like they were doing a drug buy and some random guy broke in.
 
Anty506 said:
So pretty much, you wouldn't have a right to self defense although someone broke into the house to kill them and they just happened to be there to buy weed.

That's just a bad situation!
Click to expand...
The point is, don't be involved in criminal activity and the light of self defense will shine upon you.

Th elaw is not there to protect criminals in their criminal enterprises.

- Carl
 
To clear up a mistake I have made in my post, the gunman was NOT the home owner. Sorry guys, I was working off of what I heard, but I have the correct info now that the dealer was the actually home owner and the guy that broke in was not.

Not sure if that changes anything, but I thought I should clear that up now that I have found out more info.

Just find it hard to believe that the buyer was suppose to just let the gunman kill him and not defend himself.
 
It doesn't matter who owned the house. The bottom line is the gunman was not some random stranger who broke in. He was part of the setup.

Regardless of all of that, when you deal in drugs, you take risks. This is one such risk. You deal in drugs, you waive your right to self defense. What you are saying is you should be protected under the law while breaking the law.
 
In general, self defense is a matter of commen sense. Just ask yourself if a jury of 12 in your county would convict? If you have an escape route, you cannot shoot anyone. Likewise, if someone is running away with your TV, you may not shoot him. In any event, if you did shoot him he would drop the TV and break it and you would still have to buy a new one. Common sense stuff folks,,,,,Run away.
 
Laws vary ... in a few states, if retreat is available, you must take it. In many states, you do not have to. In Texas, heck, you can even shoot a guy running away from a break-in at your neighbors' home!

Some states are more scary than others when it comes to self defense laws.

In this case, though, the law is not designed to protect criminals. If so, you could get the obscene provision of burglars shooting at homeowners and claiming self defense. By being engaged in a criminal enterprise, the criminal effectively waives his right to claim self defense as his actions were not that of an innocent victim.

- Carl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top