sm
member
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/2656921.html
Panel OKs limits when intruders killed
By MARK BALLARD
Capitol news bureau
Published: Apr 19, 2006
A House committee endorsed legislation Tuesday that would protect homeowners who kill intruders from being sued.
House Bill 1097 and another bill are aimed at removing from Louisiana law any legal hurdles that could trip up a person who uses deadly force on a criminal intruder in his home, business or vehicle.
The companion proposal, House Bill 89, would broaden when the use of violence is justified. It is scheduled to be considered today by the House Criminal Justice committee.
HB1097 would stop someone from suing for civil damages anyone who used deadly force in self-defense.
The National Rifle Association is pushing the package.
If both bills become law, then a person could kill an intruder who unlawfully invades a home, business or vehicle without worry of legal repercussions.
A shooter would not have to persuade police that he believed his life was in immediate danger because the changes incorporated in the legislation would presume he acted “reasonably” if evidence shows the entry was unlawful and forced.
Under current Louisiana law, someone who kills an intruder must show he reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary. Courts have been asked to decide if this or that specific action taken during a deadly event showed the shooter acted reasonably.
Judges look at earlier decisions to support their rulings. Over time, a kind of list developed to help guide judges in deciding what is reasonable and what is not.
For instance, the courts have determined that people who kill intruders in Louisiana have a “duty to retreat,” that is, to show that they tried to get away but couldn’t before killing the invader.
Surviving family members of the intruder have been able to use previous court decisions to argue in civil court that the killer was liable for damages even if he was not found guilty of a crime.
The most-famous example locally was the case in which Central resident Rodney Peairs shot and killed 16-year-old Yoshihiro Hattori in October 1992 after mistaking the Japanese exchange student for a intruder.
Hattori, who spoke little English, was dressed in a costume and looking for a Halloween party when Peairs shot Hattori to death with a .44-caliber Magnum at the door to Peairs’ house.
Peairs was able to show that he feared for the safety of him and his wife. He was found not guilty of manslaughter in criminal court.
But Hattori’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit. A Baton Rouge jury awarded the Hattori family $653,000, a judgment that the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed in 1996.
Peairs’ homeowners’ policy with Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. was responsible for paying much of the award.
Rep. Robby Carter, D-Greensburg, noted that HB1097 includes controversial language that would allow the defendant to collect fees and costs from the person who filed the lawsuit. Such “loser pays” language is sought year in and year out by insurance companies and large corporations that argue it would curb the number of lawsuits filed against them by consumers.
“We’re going to start seeing this language again and again,” Carter said. “We ought to be consistent in our law.”
HB1097 would affect civil law.
Sponsoring Rep. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, said he voted against similar wording over the past few years. But “this is a different situation. You should have a greater right when your family is in danger,” he said.
Carter tried to remove the language from the bill but lost on a vote of two in favor to seven against.
House Bill 89, which would change the justifiable homicide law, is scheduled to be debated today in the House Criminal Justice Committee.
Florida enacted similar legislation in 2005, said Tara Reilly Mica, a lobbyist in the Austin office of the National Rifle Association. Since then Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and South Dakota have passed the bills, according to the NRA. The legislatures of 16 states, including Louisiana, are considering the package this year.
Panel OKs limits when intruders killed
By MARK BALLARD
Capitol news bureau
Published: Apr 19, 2006
A House committee endorsed legislation Tuesday that would protect homeowners who kill intruders from being sued.
House Bill 1097 and another bill are aimed at removing from Louisiana law any legal hurdles that could trip up a person who uses deadly force on a criminal intruder in his home, business or vehicle.
The companion proposal, House Bill 89, would broaden when the use of violence is justified. It is scheduled to be considered today by the House Criminal Justice committee.
HB1097 would stop someone from suing for civil damages anyone who used deadly force in self-defense.
The National Rifle Association is pushing the package.
If both bills become law, then a person could kill an intruder who unlawfully invades a home, business or vehicle without worry of legal repercussions.
A shooter would not have to persuade police that he believed his life was in immediate danger because the changes incorporated in the legislation would presume he acted “reasonably” if evidence shows the entry was unlawful and forced.
Under current Louisiana law, someone who kills an intruder must show he reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary. Courts have been asked to decide if this or that specific action taken during a deadly event showed the shooter acted reasonably.
Judges look at earlier decisions to support their rulings. Over time, a kind of list developed to help guide judges in deciding what is reasonable and what is not.
For instance, the courts have determined that people who kill intruders in Louisiana have a “duty to retreat,” that is, to show that they tried to get away but couldn’t before killing the invader.
Surviving family members of the intruder have been able to use previous court decisions to argue in civil court that the killer was liable for damages even if he was not found guilty of a crime.
The most-famous example locally was the case in which Central resident Rodney Peairs shot and killed 16-year-old Yoshihiro Hattori in October 1992 after mistaking the Japanese exchange student for a intruder.
Hattori, who spoke little English, was dressed in a costume and looking for a Halloween party when Peairs shot Hattori to death with a .44-caliber Magnum at the door to Peairs’ house.
Peairs was able to show that he feared for the safety of him and his wife. He was found not guilty of manslaughter in criminal court.
But Hattori’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit. A Baton Rouge jury awarded the Hattori family $653,000, a judgment that the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed in 1996.
Peairs’ homeowners’ policy with Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. was responsible for paying much of the award.
Rep. Robby Carter, D-Greensburg, noted that HB1097 includes controversial language that would allow the defendant to collect fees and costs from the person who filed the lawsuit. Such “loser pays” language is sought year in and year out by insurance companies and large corporations that argue it would curb the number of lawsuits filed against them by consumers.
“We’re going to start seeing this language again and again,” Carter said. “We ought to be consistent in our law.”
HB1097 would affect civil law.
Sponsoring Rep. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, said he voted against similar wording over the past few years. But “this is a different situation. You should have a greater right when your family is in danger,” he said.
Carter tried to remove the language from the bill but lost on a vote of two in favor to seven against.
House Bill 89, which would change the justifiable homicide law, is scheduled to be debated today in the House Criminal Justice Committee.
Florida enacted similar legislation in 2005, said Tara Reilly Mica, a lobbyist in the Austin office of the National Rifle Association. Since then Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and South Dakota have passed the bills, according to the NRA. The legislatures of 16 states, including Louisiana, are considering the package this year.
