When Can You Claim Self Defense and When You Cannot in Louisiana?
Posted on: August 7, 2025 | Posted by: Jarrett P. Ambeau | Comments: No Comments
Louisiana law recognizes the right to protect yourself and others. But self‑defense is not a free pass for violence; it is a tightly defined legal justification. This article clarifies the circumstances under which you can lawfully claim self‑defense and the situations that bar this justification. We draw on Louisiana statutes and important court cases to offer practical guidance to those facing criminal charges. For personalized advice, consider consulting The Ambeau Law Firm, whose attorneys have extensive experience defending self defense cases.
Defining Self Defense Under Louisiana Law
Self‑defense is a justification, not an excuse. It acknowledges that while the defendant committed the physical act, the act was legally permissible because it prevented greater harm. Two principal statutes govern self‑defense:
- R.S. 14:19 – Use of Force or Violence in Defense: Authorizes non deadly force when necessary to prevent a forcible offense or trespass.
- R.S. 14:20 – Justifiable Homicide: Authorizes deadly force when a person reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, when preventing a violent felony, or when defending persons inside a dwelling, business or vehicle.
In addition, R.S. 14:22 allows force or deadly force to defend another person when it is reasonably apparent the person attacked could have justifiably used such means. However, R.S. 14:21 bars self-defense for an aggressor who initiates a conflict unless they withdraw and communicate their withdrawal.
Elements Required to Claim Self Defense
Non Deadly Force (R.S. 14:19)
To claim self-defense under R.S. 14:19:
- You must be preventing a forcible offense or trespass against yourself or property. Simple insults or minor threats are insufficient.
- The force used must be reasonable and apparently necessary. Courts conduct a dual inquiry. Whether a reasonable person would have considered the force necessary and whether the defendant actually believed it was necessar.
- The force must not result in a homicide. If the person dies, the situation falls under R.S. 14:20.
Deadly Force (R.S. 14:20)
To claim justifiable homicide under R.S. 14:20, one of four scenarios must exist:
- Imminent danger: You reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that killing is necessary to save yourself.
- Preventing violent or forcible felonies: You reasonably believe a violent felony (e.g., rape, armed robbery) is about to occur and that killing is necessary to prevent it.
- Protection of persons in a dwelling, business or vehicle: You reasonably believe the person killed would use unlawful force against someone in these locations.
- Shoot the intruder (castle doctrine): You are lawfully inside a dwelling, business or vehicle and use deadly force to prevent an unlawful entry or to expel an intruder; you reasonably believe deadly force is necessary. The defense does not apply if you are engaged in drug trafficking.
In each case, the belief must be reasonable. Even under the castle doctrine, the presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted by evidence showing the intruder’s actions did not warrant deadly force.
Defense of Others (R.S. 14:22)
Defending another person is justified when it is reasonably apparent the person attacked could have defended themselves and when intervention is reasonably believed necessary. The law applies the same reasonableness and proportionality requirements.
Requirements for Aggressors (R.S. 14:21)
An aggressor or someone who brings on a difficulty cannot claim self-defense unless they withdraw in good faith and make their adversary aware of the withdrawal. The aggressor doctrine ensures that someone who starts a fight cannot legally justify violence unless they clearly back away. In State v. Gasser, the appellate court emphasised that this doctrine applies to all forms of justifiable homicide and cannot be avoided by invoking the castle doctrine.
Situations When You Cannot Claim Self-Defense
- You are the Aggressor and Fail to Withdraw: If you provoke a conflict or throw the first punch, you lose the right to self-defense unless you retreat from the altercation and communicate your intent to stop. Cases like Gasser show that being an aggressor precludes a self-defense claim even under stand your ground laws.
- Unreasonable Force or Unreasonable Belief: Self-defense requires proportionality and reasonableness. In State v. Patterson, the defendant’s use of a shotgun against a pursuer armed with a pocket knife raised questions about the necessity of deadly force. If the jury decides a reasonable person would not have felt imminently threatened or that deadly force was excessive, the defense fails. Similarly, if you punch someone after a trivial insult, the force may be deemed unreasonable.
- Illegal Activity: The castle doctrine does not apply when the person using force is engaged in acquiring, distributing or possessing controlled substances. Courts may deem other criminal activities (e.g., burglary) evidence of unreasonable behavior.
- Lack of Imminent Threat: Words alone, no matter how threatening, generally do not justify violence. For a non-homicide case, there must be a forcible offense in progress; for homicide, you must reasonably believe an imminent danger exists. Shooting a fleeing burglar or retaliating after the threat has passed is usually unlawful.
- Duty to Retreat? Although Louisiana law states there is no duty to retreat when lawfully present, juries still consider whether a safe withdrawal was possible when determining reasonableness. The abolition of the retreat requirement does not excuse disproportionate violence.
- Protection of Property Alone: Deadly force cannot be used solely to protect property. R.S. 14:19 covers property protection through non deadly force; R.S. 14:20 only justifies deadly force to protect persons, not to prevent theft of property (unless violent felonies are involved).
- Defense of a Provoking Friend: If you defend someone who provoked the fight, your right to claim defense of others may be limited. Courts look at whether it was reasonably apparent the person you aided could have legally defended themselves.
Case Law Illustrating the Limits of Self-Defense
State v. Freeman: Dual Inquiry and Objective Reasonableness
Freeman involved a woman convicted of shooting her ex-husband. The court held that non‑homicide self-defense requires two inquiries objective reasonableness and subjective apparent necessity. Because the defendant was protected by a police officer and the victim showed no physical threat, the court found her belief in the necessity of shooting was unreasonable.
State v. Gasser: Aggressor Doctrine Applies to All Justifiable Homicide Claims
Gasser arose from a road rage incident. The defendant claimed he shot the victim in his car after the victim unlawfully entered, invoking the castle doctrine. The appellate court ruled that the aggressor doctrine still applies; a person who provokes a confrontation cannot later claim justifiable homicide unless they withdraw and make their adversary aware. The court also clarified that the castle doctrine does not create an unconditional right to shoot; the shooter’s belief must still be reasonable and the statute cannot be used as a shield for those who initiate violence.
State v. Patterson: Reasonableness and the Possibility of Retreat
In Patterson, a man chased the defendant with a knife. The defendant retrieved a shotgun and shot the pursuer. The court reaffirmed that a homicide is justifiable only when the killer reasonably believes they are in imminent danger and that the killing is necessary. Although Louisiana later removed the legal duty to retreat, Patterson illustrates that juries may consider whether the defendant could have avoided killing by retreating. The defendant’s failure to retreat or seek help contributed to the jury’s conclusion that the killing was unjustified.
Other Illustrative Cases
- Burden of Proof: Courts have consistently held that in homicide cases, once self-defense is raised, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justified.
- Objective Standard: Louisiana courts apply an objective standard for the belief of imminent danger and necessity, meaning the defendant’s belief must align with what a reasonable person would believe under similar circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
If someone threatens me verbally, can I hit them?
Usually not. Verbal threats alone do not constitute a forcible offense. You may only use force to prevent a forcible offense or trespass. Words coupled with actions indicating an imminent attack may justify self-defense, but you must still use only reasonable force.
I was in a bar fight and threw the first punch because someone insulted me. Can I later claim self-defense?
Probably not. By throwing the first punch, you became the aggressor. Under R.S. 14:21, an aggressor cannot claim self-defense unless they withdraw and communicate their withdrawal. An insult is insufficient to justify a physical attack.
Can I claim self-defense if I was engaged in drug activity?
The castle doctrine (shoot the intruder) does not apply if you are engaged in acquiring, distributing or possessing controlled substances. For other forms of self-defense, the illegal activity may undermine the reasonableness of your belief and provide evidence of bad intent.
I defended myself with a knife against someone with a broken bottle. Is this reasonable?
Potentially. Courts consider whether the weapons used and circumstances are proportionate. Using a knife to counter a deadly weapon like a broken bottle may be considered reasonable, but using deadly force against an unarmed person likely is not.
When defending my friend, do I inherit their rights?
Under R.S. 14:22, you may defend another person if it is reasonably apparent they could have legally defended themselves and if your intervention is necessary. However, if your friend started the fight, you must be cautious courts may find that your friend had no right to self-defense, negating your defense of others.
Does self-defense apply if the threat has ended?
No. The threat must be imminent. If your attacker turns to leave or is subdued, further force is retaliation, not self-defense. Shooting someone fleeing out the door is not protected.
Do I have to prove I tried to retreat?
No duty to retreat exists when you are lawfully present. However, evidence that you could have retreated may influence the jury’s assessment of reasonableness.
Can intoxication affect self-defense?
Intoxication does not bar self-defense, but if you voluntarily intoxicated yourself, you are still judged by a reasonable person standard. Intoxication may impair your judgment but does not justify unreasonable violence.
How soon should I call a lawyer after a self-defense incident?
Immediately. Statements made without counsel can be misconstrued. Evidence at the scene such as weapons, surveillance footage, and witness observations must be preserved. Experienced counsel can advise you on interacting with law enforcement and asserting self-defense.
How The Ambeau Law Firm Helps Clients
Self-defense cases are fact intensive. The Ambeau Law Firm leverages deep experience and forensic expertise to build strong defenses. Jarrett Ambeau has tried over 50 felony jury trials and has more than 14 years of criminal trial experience. His military background in the U.S. Army JAG Corps informs his strategic thinking and commitment to justice. He holds a Master of Science in Forensic DNA and Serology and is a court qualified expert in forensic DNA giving him unique insight into the scientific evidence often present in self-defense cases.
The firm’s approach includes:
- Detailed factual investigation: Reconstructing the incident, interviewing witnesses and examining all available evidence.
- Legal analysis: Determining which justification applies (self-defense, defense of others, castle doctrine) and whether the aggressor doctrine poses challenges.
- Forensic review: Evaluating ballistics, gunshot residue, DNA and other forensic evidence.
- Pre‑trial motions: Seeking to exclude prejudicial evidence and to ensure the jury receives proper self-defense instructions.
- Trial advocacy: Presenting a narrative that highlights the defendant’s reasonable fear and lawful actions.
Clients appreciate the firm’s dedication to explaining complex legal concepts in everyday language, helping them make informed decisions. The Ambeau Law Firm aims to protect clients’ rights and to secure acquittals when self-defense is justified.
Conclusion
Self-defense is a powerful but carefully circumscribed justification in Louisiana. You may use non deadly force to prevent a forcible offense or trespass when it is reasonable and apparently necessary, but you cannot cause a death. You may use deadly force when you reasonably believe you or others face imminent danger or when preventing a violent felony or unlawful entry. However, you cannot claim self-defense if you are the aggressor and fail to withdraw, if your force is disproportionate, or if you are engaged in certain illegal activities. The law presumes reasonableness when defending your home or vehicle, but that presumption can be rebutted.
Understanding when you can and cannot claim self-defense is vital. If you are accused of a crime after defending yourself or another, consult an experienced attorney. The Ambeau Law Firm brings both courtroom experience and forensic knowledge to self-defense cases, ensuring that your story is told and your rights are protected.
Louisiana Laws – Louisiana State Legislature
About the Author
jarrett-ambeau
Jarrett P. Ambeau Criminal Defense Attorney in Baton Rouge | Expert in Forensic DNA Interpretation Jarrett Ambeau is a highly respected criminal defense attorney based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the founder of The Ambeau Law Firm. With over 14 years of experience and more than 50 felony jury trials to verdict, Jarrett has...