Another NOT GUILTY!

[Fargo]

Both men were in their 40's, homeowner was around 5'7-8" 170lbs i would guess. At the time of the shooting, the intruder i would guess by the pics to be around 5'10"-6' 200lbs. As far as size goes, the intruder's upper body was twice the size of the homeowners.

what county was this?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[norman428]

Ok so let me get this straight, some posters think that he should have not only not used a firearm he had in his possession, but got in a fist fight. So thats the same thing as if the BG had a knife, the homeowner should have just got a knife and they could have done it that way?????
Im 6ft 165 and pretty confident in a fight, but if i have a firearm in my possession, and a 5'10 small guy charges me and i feel like he could do damage, I'm reaching for my gun. period.
So if one of you that thinks he should have just got in a fist fight, lets say your have your CC with you and he rushes you, fists up ready to fight, not even in your house but on the street, your just going to get in a fist fight? One good shout to the groin, and your CC is now mine, power just went from the good guys to the bad guys, all because you were afraid to pull the trigger?
If someones life is going to end and its either mine or his, ill pick his any day.

I think hes lucky he only got him in the knee/hip. I'm not even sure I could aim that low when threatened.

 

[k12lts]

Too bad it probably cost the homeowner $15,000 in legal fees to get out of this.

He should have just let the bad guy chase him back inside the house, then shot him.

 

[Indy317]

Too bad it probably cost the homeowner $15,000 in legal fees to get out of this.

Until we know all the details, everything is up to speculation. For all we know, there was lots of "bad blood" between the person shot, and the person doing the shooting. Sometimes, judges won't allow certain evidence in as it might taint the jury, so just because this case went to trial doesn't mean the jury heard _everything_ in this case. There might have been cell phone records, prior statements to others, etc..

The one thing is that there are a lot of folks here who will say "NEVER TALK TO THE COPS!!" Well, that never talking to the cops means that _your_ side of the story is never known to them, not one piece of it. Don't worry, they will be investigating and getting information the best they can. I do wonder if in this case the guy on trial ever spoke with the cops? I wonder if he told them not w/o a lawyer, then never bothered to contact a lawyer until after the prosecutor already filled charges. That $15,000 in legal fees might have only had to be $3,000 in legal fees. Some prosecutors will seriously consider going on with a case once they know the accused has put up the money for a competent attorney and is willing to fight.

This would be a good case to know _all_ the facts. Too bad that likely won't ever happen.

 

[Redskinsfan]

Agreed.

one punch to the nose can kill a person, unarmed doesn't mean not a threat.

This is often forgotten. Grown men with bare fists can easily kill with a single strike and it happens inadvertently more times than not. A strike to the temple can be lights out forever. Fists are deadly force, not a sport.

Terry

 

[Redskinsfan]

what county was this?

Thanks,

Joe

\
Joe,

The OP said it was Montgomery County.

Terry

 

[Chefcook]

The way I see it the bad guy was lucky the homeowner only shot to wound. I would have killed him...

 

[ezdubbin97]

Just curious, a lot of folks spoke about how the homeowner "brandished" or "pointed" the firearm and how that escalated the situation...as I read back to the OP I only read that he retrieved his firearm and then came out.

Did the homeowner point the firearm at the intruder before he came after him? I know he saw the gun before he lunged at the homeowner, but I'm assuming that could have made a difference in the case. If he just came out with a firearm low ready, or just in his hand, or OC'd in a holster would he not just be prepared for the worse?

Just wanted some clarification for myself.

 

[Johnny C]

If someone came into my house 2 times unannounced and confronted anyone, I would have gotten a restraining order against him in the first place. That would have helped the man's case when it came to the shooting.

Also, the girl didnt seem too afraid of the fellow, if she was standing there arguing with him in the first place. IYou gotta wonder about that one.

 

[chraland51]

There are just too many bad guys out there who would not think twice about making me into a grease spot on the pavement. I am too old to try to defend myself with physical force. I would beg and plead with the bad guy to stop and think about what he is planning to do. However, when all else fails, I would not hesitate to fire my weapon a time or two in his direction.

 

[dustjunky2000]

Umm. The bg charged into the homeowner's house towards the homeowner while the homeowner had a gun. That by definition means the use of deadly force is not only allowed, but prudent as the bg has clearly demonstrated that he intended the homeowner harm, and now that a gun is in play the homeowner can NOT allow someone who intended him harm control of it.

I was going to say almost this exact same thing.

 

[finity]

no the way I read it, the guy got rushed AFTER he brandished a weapon. Had he not done that he might not have been rushed.

I guess this is more of a factor of when to draw down and when not to.

Since, in IN, we are allowed to carry however we want (& yes that means we can carry it in our hands, too) it doesn’t really matter if the homeowner “brandished” the weapon. The only question is, “was the homeowner justified in pointing his gun at the BG then ultimately using deadly force against him?”

I think legally he was OK doing both. Luckily for him the jury agreed.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

The above says that it’s legal to use reasonable force to prevent the unlawful use of force on yourself or a third party. The homeowner stated he was in fear of the woman’s safety which was reinforced when he heard his glass door get broken.

IC 35-47-4-3 says that pointing a handgun is considered reasonable force under IC 35-41-3-2.

So using the above two laws, he was legally justified in pointing his gun at the BG to get him to stop threatening his female friend & to make him leave his property.

When the guy “clenched his fists” & charged the homeowner, the BG now gave the homeowner justification for deadly force.

The homeowner is lucky he was found not guilty. It appears he used some very bad judgment. Even though he was found not guilty he has paid dearly. Just not worth it IMO.

What bad judgment did he use exactly? I agree that he paid dearly but that IMO wasn’t the fault of the homeowner. That was the fault of the legal system that put him on trial for a justified use of self-defense.

I was assuming the guy had a storm door . Either way , I was trying to make the point that the homeowner had other options .

I was thinking that the homeowner didn't have to go outside in the first place .

Maybe if he called the cops the BG would have run off , maybe not .

The homeowner had no duty to retreat. He was doing what he thought was necessary to protect someone on his property. The Castle Doctrine doesn’t just apply inside of your home; it applies to your “curtilage” (the area just outside your home) as well.

This tells me that the home owner got lucky , this time .

If the state argued this case a little different , the "other five" or maybe all of them would have felt different about it .

It doesn't say the five were for the home owner , it says the state couldn't prove their case .

I don’t know how the legal system in your reality works but where I’m from that means he was innocent. You know “innocent until proven guilty” & all.

Even if it means listening to some Ahole BG run his mouth or getting a broken window .

You’re completely missing the point (or ignoring it). It wasn’t about an Ahole running his mouth or someone breaking his window. It was about a homeowner who felt threatened after he tried to protect a third party on HIS property from a perceived threat.

He could have called the police the second time the BG left , he could have hit the BG with OC or depending on his relationship to the woman , he could have told her and the BG to leave .

Maybe his relationship to the woman was such that he didn’t want to hide in his house (which he had no legal obligation to do) & have the woman injured while he was waiting for the police to show up. You know how the saying goes: “when seconds count…”

The home owner had other options until he pulled a weapon .

I can’t believe you & RogerB are blaming the victim here. The homeowner is not the criminal. He did not start the problem. He did not escalate the problem just because he decided to stand up to the BG & defend himself or the woman.

Just curious, a lot of folks spoke about how the homeowner "brandished" or "pointed" the firearm and how that escalated the situation...as I read back to the OP I only read that he retrieved his firearm and then came out.

Did the homeowner point the firearm at the intruder before he came after him? I know he saw the gun before he lunged at the homeowner, but I'm assuming that could have made a difference in the case. If he just came out with a firearm low ready, or just in his hand, or OC'd in a holster would he not just be prepared for the worse?

Just wanted some clarification for myself.

It honestly doesn’t make a difference. If the homeowner was legally justified in pointing the gun at the BG & using deadly force, then the homeowner pointing a gun (or “brandishing” it – which IN doesn’t have a law against) at the BG doesn’t give the BG justification for attacking him.

IOW, if you are committing a crime & someone uses legal force against you (deadly or not) to stop the crime YOU are committing, you can’t claim self-defense in trying to save your own skin. YOU started it. THEY are the innocent victims.

See IC 35-41-3-2 section (e).

 

[hardtrailz400]

Bad Guy should have left the property in a body bag.