The Louisiana ‘Stand Your Ground’ law gives people inside of the vehicles a lot of leeway to use deadly force.Here is the law: Louisiana Revised Statutes Chapter 14:20
A homicide is justifiable:(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.
“If you look at the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law in Louisiana, if I’m in my vehicle, it’s just like me being in my house,” explained WWL-TV legal analyst Donald ‘Chick’ Foret. “Let’s say, perhaps, hypothetically, that Joe McKnight was trying to get into my car, and I thought that it was reasonable for me to use deadly force to keep him out of my car, I can use deadly force, that’s the justifiable homicide.”
I am adding this article to the list of Scum Journalism because they have no way to say it was an honest mistake. Louisiana does have SYG but it is not what is quoted on the article which everybody with 5 minutes of Google search time in his pocket will immediately identify as Castle Doctrine (They hate Castle Doctrine too). And Louisiana also has Stand Your Ground written into its law and if you were a kind person that gives people the benefit of the doubt, you’d think they missed the relevant statute that must be hiding somewhere amidst thousands of pages of other laws. That is not the case.
The definitions for castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are in the same Statute in different subsections in the same frigging page! The Advertiser is quoting from Louisiana Revised Statutes Chapter 14:20 – A(4)(a) while Stand Your Ground is seven lines below under 14:20 – C.
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.
(Underline is mine)
It is my opinion that this is not a “mistake” but an imperfect attempt to mislead the public into confusion. Obviously I cannot read the minds of the writers and they can claim Absence of Malice all day long, but I can call attention to their poor reading skills if they were not able to read the obviously glaring statute barely seven lines down the one they quoted. So are they politically motivated, stupid or both? You decide.
PS: I should have figured that Bob Owens over Bearing Arms has his take on this “confusion”with a longer explanation and overview of the Joe McKnight case. Give it a read.