As usual, for sake of discussion we are going to assume the info in the article is correct.
LIVINGSTON — In a case that tested the limits of Louisiana’s “stand your ground” laws, a Walker man found guilty of attempted manslaughter in the 2015 shooting of a home invader was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison.
Aaron Neames, 27, had been found guilty in the shooting case in May. He was sentenced on Thursday by 21st Judicial District Judge Bob Morrison.
At trial, the prosecution argued Neames went too far in shooting home invader Benjamin Jarreau, 19, of Gonzales, pursuing vigilante retribution after the man was already disarmed and out of the house.
The defense attorney maintained that Neames was justified in shooting the man, who only moments earlier had held three people hostage inside the house with a gun.
Walker man who shot home invader sentenced to 3 years; case tested ‘stand your ground’ law
Long story short: Benjamin Jarreau broke into a house and at gun point terrorized the people inside. Mr. Neames arrived, a struggle ensued and Jarraeu abandoned the house in a hurry and without a gun. It is what happens next what torques the pig’s tail:
According to Daniels, Jarreau left and got into his car. Neames followed him outside and shot into the car six times, striking Jarreau in the elbow and arm.
For the prosecution and eventually the jury, Mr. Jarreu was no longer being a threat and the efforts by the defense to explain that he got shot because Mr. Neames considered him a continuous threat, failed to make way.
Simply put: the moment that the attacker left the house, the whistle was blown and the clock for the previous event stopped, Neames was no longer covered by any Self-Defense statute.
Unfortunately the whistle is just a metaphor and you only can rely on your smarts not to step over the line. If the immediate threat has ceased, you are to stop, remain vigilant but take no action.
I almost forgot: The way I see it, SYG did not apply.
Odd, since we’ve been told countless times that SYG (and Castle Doctrine) are licenses to kill.
Somewhere in the past, some instructor planted in my brain that a self-defense incident was almost like a dance. Each side made moves and the responsibility can move back and forth between them. One could argue that the self-defense claim ended the moment the guy turned to leave – before he left the house and was in his car.
This was definitely long past the part of the dance where the shooter could claim self defense.
I wonder if the defense attempted to argue they believed the home invader was still armed or intended to use the car as a weapon? I think it hinges on if he knew he was armed or not, a guy running away can still shoot at you.
Remember that the hurdle is Reasonable Man. Sincerely if I am in the jury and the defense attorney pulls that one, I’d laugh an vote guilty.
I agree with you there, even if you were 100% in the right, your balls are in a vice. There is no good option on that one.