If I was shooting at the police, I would have hit them

[IndianaGTI]

Well, that is the defense of Kenny Tipton as I hear it. He goes on trial next week for firing off 6 shots with a shotgun from a covered position. I believe he did shoot two unoccupied police cars. He is charged with attempted murder of a police officer. It will be interesting to see how the trial comes out. I suspect that the jurors may convict him simply for making that statement.

 

[Leo]

What a foolish statement.

 

[lrahm]

What a foolish statement.

Because they were police officers.

 

[IndianaGTI]

I agree. It is extremely foolish. I suspect it is more likely to get him convicted than the facts of the case. A lot of people would rather see a person who would make a statement like that off the streets.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I believe the legal term is Problematic Defense.

 

[T.Lex]

It goes to the specific intent to kill, which is required. That's about the only thing he can argue. He's not the first, or the last, to use it. Mostly there's a conviction, but sometimes... well... juries are fickle beasts.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It goes to the specific intent to kill, which is required.

With a shotgun?

Problematic to say the least.

Juries do not like "I was just shooting toward him, not at him".

 

[T.Lex]

Oh, no doubt it is risky. But, your client won't take a plea, or the prosecutor won't offer one, and what else do you have? "It was an accident.... for three hours."

Even if the jury doesn't buy it, every once in awhile, the Court of Appeals will create a new twist to the attempted-murder-specific-intent instruction body of law. You play the cards you're dealt.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Argue for Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon and try to get your plea from the jury.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

The title of this thread made me scared for you if there was ever a confrontation with LEO's.

That aside, WTF was this guy thinking making a statement like that?

 

[T.Lex]

Argue for Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon and try to get your plea from the jury.

Isn't that the same thing?

You can't just stay quiet about the intent - it can be presumed from the use of the deadly weapon, knowing that there was a probability of serious bodily injury (or something like that, it has been awhile since I was involved in those kinds of cases).

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Just a follow up. Kenneth Tipton was convicted of Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon, a C Felony and Cultivating Marijuana, a D Felony and being a habitual offender. He went from a maximum of 80 years in prison, which is actually only really 40 years, to a maximum of 20 years in prison which is really only 10 years.

The testimony from his family was that he was an excellent hunter who could hit birds when bird hunting with a shotgun. One officer testified (while fighting back tears according to the newspaper) that he ran from cover to cover while being shot at repeatedly by Mr. Tipton. IIRC, the newpaper said that Tipton initially pointed the shotgun right at him and fired, then Tipton fired 5 or 6 more times as the officer moved from cover to cover such as behind a telephone pole. It was my understanding that there was no testimony that any cover was actually hit while the officer was hiding behind it.

It was just an interesting trial. I watched parts. Pretty crazy defense. There was speculation as to whether the jury would convict him based solely on his defense.

IMHO attempted murder is much harder to prove at trial than murder. Not only do you have to prove that the defendant shot at the victim (or whatever means he used) but you also have to prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim.

 

[lrahm]

Kirk Freeman is right. Most of the laws are based on the fact that you have to show intent. However in criminal recklessnes you just have to show what you are doing places a risk at or towards someone.

 

[xM3RC1L3SS1x]

I guess he never heard anyone say "Think before you speak".

 

[Mosinowner]

There are no words

 

[gabrigger]

Obviously he was not thinking at all.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IMHO attempted murder is much harder to prove at trial than murder. Not only do you have to prove that the defendant shot at the victim (or whatever means he used) but you also have to prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim.

Dead on.

It's the new pattern jury instruction. It makes Attempted Murder tough for the prosecution and juries do their job and take fine tooth combs to the instructions.

However in criminal recklessnes you just have to show what you are doing places a risk at or towards someone.

Wwweeeelllll, it's a little more than that technically . . . but just so INGO is clear:

Indiana Code 35-41-2-2

(c) A person engages in conduct "recklessly" if he engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.

 

[dsells13]

Criminal Recklessness seems to be this guy's best bet. Yet again, with a statement like that (how stupid...), maybe we want him locked up for a while

 

[joe138]

sentencing is Dec. 7.

 

[IndianaGTI]

20 is max. Does anyone want to bet on the under? I know I wouldn't!