Interesting news story on self-defense.

[Frank_N_Stein]

Self-defense killings skew Indianapolis murder rate | Fox 59

Discussing the Indy murder numbers this year and how many may actually be ruled self-defense. Pay close attention to the quotes by the interviewed attorney.

 

[Slawburger]

Numbers without an explanation can lead to false conclusions. Good article.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I saw the "torso found in White River" wasn't in the murder count. I don't think that one was death from natural causes.

I did come away with a different view on self-defense. It's self-defense whether you're a law-abiding homeowner or a drug dealer.

 

[rob63]

Ok, so can anyone provide a ball-park figure for how the numbers would shake out if there were separate categories for home invasion, random killing, and drug-related homicide? I can probably guess, just curious if there is something better than my admittedly uninformed opinion.

 

[KittySlayer]

So is the goal of the article to:
1- Support gun owners rights to self defense, or
2- Manipulate crime statistics so the City appears safer (on paper)?

 

[T.Lex]

David Hennessey is a good lawyer. But, for me, I weigh his comments against the nature of his caseload. If one (or all) of his clients would benefit from people thinking there was more self-defense out there, then that's what he would say.

18-year-old Indianapolis man found not guilty of murder in Seymour armed robbery | CBS 4 - Indianapolis News, Weather, Traffic and Sports | WTTV

Just to be clear, what he says in the article in the OP is absolutely true: people who are otherwise criminals are still entitled to self-defense (generally).

 

[Liberty Sanders]

A drug-dealer who kills another drug-dealer in self-defense remains at liberty and is therefore free to kill MORE drug-dealers in self-defense.

I think ALL killings between drug-dealers should be regarded as self-defense. It's a win-win.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

“Just because you’re committing a crime doesn’t mean that you have to allow yourself to be robbed or killed or beaten up,” said Hennessey.

Well, take a look at who his clients are and you can figure why he says this.

I saw the "torso found in White River" wasn't in the murder count. I don't think that one was death from natural causes.

Thank the coroner for that one. Murder and natural causes aren't the only options. Let's say someone died from an overdose and then someone else dismembered the body and tried to hide it. It wouldn't count as a murder and would also not be natural causes. (Note I am not saying that's something that occurred in that particular case, just a possibility as to why something would not be classified as a murder until more facts were gathered). Sometimes deaths are believed to be murders by the police but aren't classified as such right away.

“If they want to relate their statistics to how concerned the community should be, I think they need to break them down as to type of murders. Home invasions. That clearly should give people pause. Random killings give people pause,”

Lulz, home invasions are very very rarely random crimes and are tied to the dope trade. The number of random killings is a tiny, tiny portion of murders. Most are quite targeted, either against the individual or as an occupational hazard.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Disclaimer: Hennessey is a good friend and colleague.

Everything he says is correct as a matter of law. Is he biased? Yes, of course, you don't hire David Hennessey to judge you, but to fight for you.

Excellent article. Sort of shocked that this came from Fox59. Thanks for posting it, Frank.

 

[HoughMade]

Seems to me that the stats would only be "skewed" if they included self-defense killings as murder.

 

[funeralweb]

Thank the coroner for that one. Murder and natural causes aren't the only options. Let's say someone died from an overdose and then someone else dismembered the body and tried to hide it. It wouldn't count as a murder and would also not be natural causes. (Note I am not saying that's something that occurred in that particular case, just a possibility as to why something would not be classified as a murder until more facts were gathered). Sometimes deaths are believed to be murders by the police but aren't classified as such right away.

Some ODs are not being labeled as such already. Seeing cases where there was easily lethal levels of heroin, etc. where, if other drugs are detected in less-than-fatal levels, the death isn't called an OD. Semantics....

 

[Denny347]

Disclaimer: Hennessey is a good friend and colleague.

Everything he says is correct as a matter of law. Is he biased? Yes, of course, you don't hire David Hennessey to judge you, but to fight for you.

Excellent article. Sort of shocked that this came from Fox59. Thanks for posting it, Frank.

This is really an affirmative defense?

“Just because you’re committing a crime doesn’t mean that you have to allow yourself to be robbed or killed or beaten up,” said Hennessey.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is really an affirmative defense?

“Just because you’re committing a crime doesn’t mean that you have to allow yourself to be robbed or killed or beaten up,” said Hennessey.

When you say affirmative, do you mean effective?

Yes, self-defense is an affirmative defense.

Yes, even a drug dealer can claim self-defense given the circumstances described in the newscast and can be effective.

Are you thinking of the jury pattern instruction on self-defense?

 

[Denny347]

When you say affirmative, do you mean effective?

Yes, self-defense is an affirmative defense.

Yes, even a drug dealer can claim self-defense given the circumstances described in the newscast and can be effective.

Are you thinking of the jury pattern instruction on self-defense?

I guess all of it. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client was transporting a kg of heroin, minding his own business, when this dubious criminal approached him armed. This criminal demanded my client hand over the heroin or get shot. My client was able to fire first and prevent the robbery of his drugs...clear case of self defense." I guess we should expect a not guilty?

 

[bb37]

Yes, self-defense is an affirmative defense.

I was a juror in a drunk driving case a few years ago. A police officer had observed the defendant driving erratically and conducted a traffic stop. While interviewing the defendant, the police officer observed evidence of intoxication (slurred speech, poor coordination). The defendant expressed a desire to go to a hospital for treatment of the defendant's previously-sustained injuries and the officer called for an ambulance. While at the hospital, the defendant agreed to a blood test which later indicated that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs. The defense attorney did not dispute the observations of the police officer or the results of the blood test, but the defense attorney did present an affirmative defense in that the defendant had committed the illegal act (driving while intoxicated/under the influence) in an attempt to get away from the defendant's physically abusive spouse and get treatment for injuries allegedly inflicted by the spouse.

We, the jury, determined that the defendant had other options besides driving while intoxicated and found the defendant guilty of the charges.

However, if the defendant had grabbed a knife and stabbed the spouse or pulled a gun and shot the spouse, what I hear you saying is that the defense attorney could have made the self-defense argument and that we, the jury, could have legitimately found the defendant not guilty of assaulting, injuring, or, possibly, killing the spouse. I'm not asking you to provide a legal judgement, but you do have me wondering if the jury in the case I described came to the wrong verdict. Obviously, if I was the defendant and had assaulted, injured, or killed my spouse, I would want you to argue self-defense on my behalf.

Yes, even a drug dealer can claim self-defense given the circumstances described in the newscast and can be effective.

Most of us think that dealing in illegal drugs are A Bad Thing. Most of think that killing someone is A Bad Thing. But, if killing someone gets a drug dealer off the streets, is that A Good Thing? Generally, I think that most people believe that killing someone is A Worse Thing than selling drugs. To me, that would make the "self-defense as an affirmative defense" argument a little hard to accept. You may not want me on the jury.

 

[jbombelli]

I guess all of it. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client was transporting a kg of heroin, minding his own business, when this dubious criminal approached him armed. This criminal demanded my client hand over the heroin or get shot. My client was able to fire first and prevent the robbery of his drugs...clear case of self defense." I guess we should expect a not guilty?

I'd vote not guilty for the shoot, guilty for the Kg of heroin.

 

[rob63]

I was a juror in a drunk driving case a few years ago. A police officer had observed the defendant driving erratically and conducted a traffic stop. While interviewing the defendant, the police officer observed evidence of intoxication (slurred speech, poor coordination). The defendant expressed a desire to go to a hospital for treatment of the defendant's previously-sustained injuries and the officer called for an ambulance. While at the hospital, the defendant agreed to a blood test which later indicated that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs. The defense attorney did not dispute the observations of the police officer or the results of the blood test, but the defense attorney did present an affirmative defense in that the defendant had committed the illegal act (driving while intoxicated/under the influence) in an attempt to get away from the defendant's physically abusive spouse and get treatment for injuries allegedly inflicted by the spouse.

We, the jury, determined that the defendant had other options besides driving while intoxicated and found the defendant guilty of the charges.

However, if the defendant had grabbed a knife and stabbed the spouse or pulled a gun and shot the spouse, what I hear you saying is that the defense attorney could have made the self-defense argument and that we, the jury, could have legitimately found the defendant not guilty of assaulting, injuring, or, possibly, killing the spouse. I'm not asking you to provide a legal judgement, but you do have me wondering if the jury in the case I described came to the wrong verdict. Obviously, if I was the defendant and had assaulted, injured, or killed my spouse, I would want you to argue self-defense on my behalf.


Most of us think that dealing in illegal drugs are A Bad Thing. Most of think that killing someone is A Bad Thing. But, if killing someone gets a drug dealer off the streets, is that A Good Thing? Generally, I think that most people believe that killing someone is A Worse Thing than selling drugs. To me, that would make the "self-defense as an affirmative defense" argument a little hard to accept. You may not want me on the jury.

FWIW, Kirk is asserting that self-defense is still applicable even for someone in possession of illegal drugs. You are talking about someone under the influence of drugs. Apples and oranges.

I'll put a different spin on it. You run a red-light causing someone to get road rage and start chasing you. You break the speed limit trying to get away, but they catch you and pull a gun on you. Have you forfeited your right to self-defense by running the red-light and breaking the speed limit? That is the only thing being argued, that the commission of a crime does not cause you to forfeit your right to self-defense. Whether or not you had other options available, acted reasonably, were under the influence of something, are all things still applicable in deciding whether your actions were justified or not. If you were drunk when you ran the red-light and killed in self-defense it probably still won't go well for you, but that is a completely different situation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd vote not guilty for the shoot, guilty for the Kg of heroin.

I think you'll find that most of them are a bit more sketchy. Doper A is dead, Doper B has fled. When Doper B is caught, he decides to go with self defense after he can't lie about being there any longer because evidence puts him at the scene, etc. If witnesses don't cooperate or don't exist, etc I guess it's the quickest route to reasonable doubt.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That is the only thing being argued, that the commission of a crime does not cause you to forfeit your right to self-defense.

Depends on the crime. IC has a list. If Johnnie is robbing Timmie, and Jamie shoots Johnnie to stop the robbery, Johnnie can't shoot Jamie and claim self-defense.

 

[rob63]

Depends on the crime. IC has a list. If Johnnie is robbing Timmie, and Jamie shoots Johnnie to stop the robbery, Johnnie can't shoot Jamie and claim self-defense.

Well, I kind of thought a situation like that would have been covered within the overall context of my comments.