I don't know....

I have to say the potential risk of a kid being shot by a teacher, or with a teacher's stolen handgun are just to great of a risk by itself. All the training and safety measures in the world won't prevent every accident nor will it prevent every individual with intent to do harm, while a no gun policy prevents 100% of the accidental shootings at the VERY SLIM risk of one maniac coming in and shooting the place up. Yes I know you hear about it more often today than ever before, but still the ratio compared to the number of schools without shootings, in my opinion, doesn't justify this action.

We can agree to disagree but something needs to be done with kids having guns and crack too.

>I said MORE guns doesn't equal less crime and I have more than proved that point with support of the Federal government.

Whether or not I agree with you, you did not prove that.

>2. If you shoot an intruder in your home and he is Unarmed, and therefore your life was not in immediate danger, guess which one of you goes to jail that night. This is 2007, Al, not 1807, deal with it.

Either him (if he's alive) or nobody (if he's dead). It's perfectly legal in LA to shoot to death an unarmed intruder in your home (or car) even if you know he is unarmed and even if he's only attempting to enter your home or car.

Actually I provided a graph from the Department of Justice that clearly shows firearm related crime is on the rise.

Play the Devil's Advocate to your heart's desire, that doesn't change one fact.
Under Louisiana’s “Kill the Burglar” statute a homeowner can use deadly force against intruders in the home, without any obligation to retreat, if the homeowner reasonably believes that the intruder might use any unlawful force against anyone in the home.

Simply put, you sneak up on an unarmed burglar and shoot him, then you had no justifiable reason to believe unlawful force was going to be used against you....furthermore, I challenge you to find just one case where the homeowner was not charged when the intruder was not armed.

I think an easy way to solve this dilemma is to have a drop gun or knife. wipe fingerprints clean and through it down. Officer I saw that weapon in his hand and I went to shootin'. If you don't believe me officer just ask that criminal...... Oh dead men tell no tales

Now that is defiantly something we shouldn't be telling people.....

>Simply put, you sneak up on an unarmed burglar and shoot him, then you had no justifiable reason to believe unlawful force was going to be used against you

Incorrect. The law assumes that if the person you killed had unlawfully entered your home or was in the process of unlawfully entering your home and you were aware of this fact then you had reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary.

Drop guns and knives are not necessary because it is not illegal to kill an unarmed unlawful intruder (or attempted intruder).

If there is a stranger in my house that definitely constitues immenent danger, and I will be looking for a centermass shot as opposed to a weapon or a cop (that may be there in 45 minutes if I'm lucky).:eek:

I think here in recent news that Tyrone got shot over on Union Street by some old black man and it kilt him and no charges came out of it and he was not armed or his buddy that ran off either.

Then you should be able to cite multiple cases....I'm just asking for one. I can't seem to find any.

>I challenge you to find just one case where the homeowner was not charged when the intruder was not armed.

Unnecessary, the law is quite clear. Even so, the famous Yoshihiro Hattori is a great example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

I challenge you to find one case under modern LA law where a homeowner was prosecuted for killing an unarmed intruder, especially one already inside the dwelling.

Castle Doctrine
 

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

I think the ACLU wants the criminals to have more rights than the law abiding citizen. I say if you enter a house you don't own, rent nor invited into get ready for consequences..... Try breaking into the White House a see what happens- The Secret Service will skin that smoke wagon and go to work.:peace: