Defending within your home

[SemperFiUSMC]

If I recall there are any of three things the prosecution can prove to disallow a self-defense plea. I can't remember what they are. I'll try to look them up again later.

1. "B.... owed me money."
2. "He was tappin' my b.... h.."
3. You're seen wearing the dead m..... f..... Air Jordans.

 

[finity]

finity - Please do look up those three things. I am interested in hearing them.

Here they are in a recently posted case:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10310706jgb.pdf

Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph.

It goes on to say that:

Finally, we note that when a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.

So even if you use the claim of self-defense (admitting to the crime but with jusification) the state still has to prove it wasn't self-defense.

 

[JHAWK1980]

Here they are in a recently posted case:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10310706jgb.pdf

Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph.

It goes on to say that:



So even if you use the claim of self-defense (admitting to the crime but with jusification) the state still has to prove it wasn't self-defense.

I may not have read that well enough but it read as though the defendant was involved in a drive-by. This is what I would call murder, not self defense.

 

[finity]

I may not have read that well enough but it read as though the defendant was involved in a drive-by. This is what I would call murder, not self defense.

True but he tried to use SD as a justification for his actions. That's why the discussion turned to the elements of self-defense & the burden of proof required of both parties. That's what JoshuaW asked me to post.

Yeah, if the facts were as presented then he got what he deserved.

 

[RichardR]

LOL the idiot does a drive by shooting & claims self-defense!?!?!

Anyway I believe Finity was referring to this part of that .pdf:

(1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

In a home invasion scenario I am guessing that all 3 of these would be easily met, unless of course the home invasion was committed by a neighbors child who crawled through a pet door or something in order to follow the animal inside of the house.

 

[FULLMAGAZINE]

IMHO and IMHO (Humble and Honest)

1.) Having your attorney show up before the LEO does is probably twist-able by the Prosecuting Attorney as the same as fleeing a shooting scene. Might even show premeditation. Call 911 first. Give as few details as possible about bullets.

2.) Interrogation involves questioning; it does not involve ANSWERING.
Full M.

 

[JHAWK1980]

2.) Interrogation involves questioning; it does not involve ANSWERING.
Full M.

 

[JoshuaW]

LOL the idiot does a drive by shooting & claims self-defense!?!?!

Anyway I believe Finity was referring to this part of that .pdf:

(1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

In a home invasion scenario I am guessing that all 3 of these would be easily met, unless of course the home invasion was committed by a neighbors child who crawled through a pet door or something in order to follow the animal inside of the house.

Yes. Basically common sense. If you shoot and DONT meet those criteria, you should know what is coming for you, IMO.

Finity, thanks for posting those. I was aware of those, but wasnt sure if that was what you were referencing.