Man charged with murder after indianapolis protests

[BehindBlueI's]

What is that number? How many have to be thrown before you cross that line? It's a standard that we don't apply to any other form of deadly force.

It actually is. Can you articulate you took the action you did to prevent serious bodily injury? IC basically divides injury in to "bodily injury", "moderate bodily injury", and "serious bodily injury." The burden is reasonably believes, not merely possibly. Reasonable test is going to include probability (like probable cause). Getting knocked out by random sumdood swinging at you is very rare, so it is not 'probably going to cause serious bodily injury.'


The holstered gun analogy is one I used for a reason. He has the capability to do serious bodily injury, but it hasn't progressed to the point of probably yet. Neither is a punch from sumdood absent some factors that would allow you to articulate otherwise. He's 60 lbs heavier than me, his nose appears to have been broken multiple times, I have a medical condition (documented) that makes a blow to the head much more dangerous to me, etc. etc. You need to be able to articulate those, though.


I seriously doubt much of INGO or society at large would support the police shooting everyone who physically fought with us. Take a swing, get shot and killed? Our rules are the same as yours except in one regard, which deals with affecting an arrest by deadly force and is more hypothetical than real because anytime it would apply your ability to defend a 3rd party would almost certainly apply equally.

*edit*

To add: There's also the "prevent a forcible felony", and being attacked by someone with a deadly weapon is also going to fall under forcible felonies.

 

[DragonGunner]

It actually is. Can you articulate you took the action you did to prevent serious bodily injury? IC basically divides injury in to "bodily injury", "moderate bodily injury", and "serious bodily injury." The burden is probably, not merely possibly. Getting knocked out by random sumdood swinging at you is very rare, so it is not 'probably going to cause serious bodily injury.'


The holstered gun analogy is one I used for a reason. He has the capability to do serious bodily injury, but it hasn't progressed to the point of probably yet. Neither is a punch from sumdood absent some factors that would allow you to articulate otherwise. He's 60 lbs heavier than me, his nose appears to have been broken multiple times, I have a medical condition (documented) that makes a blow to the head much more dangerous to me, etc. etc. You need to be able to articulate those, though.


I seriously doubt much of INGO or society at large would support the police shooting everyone who physically fought with us. Take a swing, get shot and killed? Our rules are the same as yours except in one regard, which deals with affecting an arrest by deadly force and is more hypothetical than real because anytime it would apply your ability to defend a 3rd party would almost certainly apply equally.

I don't know...not everyone is built and trained like cops are they? Most cops are cops because they are fit, strong and well trained...no? Now the average or below average Joe has to be as tough and well trained as a cop before using deadly force.....I thought it was in fear for your life? I seen too many you tube videos of one punch fights not ending well. Shoot I got lucky when I was 20 and only weighed 140 lbs, guy grabbing me and harassing me I did a spinning back fist and knocked him out, he was well over 230 lbs. I don't think its rare at all. For me its coming down to in fear for my life as the law states. Although as I believe you said earlier, there may be a trial. I hate to think a bigger younger guy deciding he is going to beat the hell out of me means I get to get the hell beat out of me before defending myself out of fear for my life. On another note if any officer is attacked and in the process of attack I believe he has the same right to defend himself, the attacker KNOWS for sure what they are doing, in fact they know the officer has a gun...so why are they attacking a armed individual. In my book that officer should be able to dump a mag or 2 into the attacker. Just because some haven't learned its wrong to attack a officer doesn't mean they get a free pass. Maybe we would have a more polite society again......but thats just a opinion, we all have them. I appreciate your insights and reading your comments and learning.

 

[Twangbanger]

It actually is. Can you articulate you took the action you did to prevent serious bodily injury? IC basically divides injury in to "bodily injury", "moderate bodily injury", and "serious bodily injury." The burden is reasonably believes, not merely possibly. Reasonable test is going to include probability (like probable cause). Getting knocked out by random sumdood swinging at you is very rare, so it is not 'probably going to cause serious bodily injury.'


The holstered gun analogy is one I used for a reason. He has the capability to do serious bodily injury, but it hasn't progressed to the point of probably yet. Neither is a punch from sumdood absent some factors that would allow you to articulate otherwise. He's 60 lbs heavier than me, his nose appears to have been broken multiple times, I have a medical condition (documented) that makes a blow to the head much more dangerous to me, etc. etc. You need to be able to articulate those, though....

I appreciate you detailing that, because the section including your bolded portion is an example of where I (admittedly personally) believe the law is getting into "excessive parsing" in the shades and degrees of bodily injury, as garden variety/moderate/serious. This reminds me of the adage about "minor surgery" being surgery that is happening to "someone else."

You make repeated reference to the idea of "sumdood taking a punch." When somedood takes a swing with intent at "me," he stops being somedood. That's where he becomes "my attacker," and that separates him from the mass of humanity in a very significant way (again, to me).

I blame this on Hollywood. It seems a certain level of fistfighting is simply taken as "normal" human behavior, because everybody and his brother grew up watching John Wayne westerns where there's a bar fight every third scene, everybody "cracks" each other at least 3x on camera, and nobody gets hurt from it. It also comes from hearing folks like Churchmouse and your Uncle Joe and really anybody from "the Generation," talking about how "back in the old neighborhood in Philly," everybody got in fights, then we got up, dusted ourselves off, and became the best of friends-for-life. There is a certain degree of "normalcy" afforded to all of this.

The bottom line here for the INGO community, and I thank BBI for pointing this out, seems to be that if you're an average male (ie, not John Cena) person and another seemingly average male (ie, not Duane Rock) person (again as far as you know, because how would you ever know) person begins punching you, absent an obvious gun/knife/club, the law in our burgh expects you do "duke it out like men" with the person to a mutually-accepted conclusion, hire a lawyer, and work out the assault charges and medical lawsuits after-the-fact. And that using your gun is seen in the eyes of the law as an "escalation" of the situation, *unless* (and this is where the weasel-word of "articulation" comes back into play) you can verbally slather on a nice, thick, juicy layer of attorney-approved language which successfully navigates the legal-graduated-scale of bodily injury and justifies your use of force. (*consult the training section for a complete list of training vendors standing by ready to coach you in "use of language" ).

I think what makes this tough for many to accept, is that in a striking fight, the difference between "bodily injury" (a glancing punch which maybe leaves a bruise if anything at all), "moderate bodily injury" (something more square which the person walks away from, but ends up causing a lifetime of headaches and sinus surgeries), and "serious bodily injury" (a strike centered full-on in the "triangle of death" which leaves you hooked up to machines) is often just a few inches of head movement to keep the blow from landing square.

I think expecting the average person to be required by the law to think all that out on their feet after they've been physically attacked, and "Marvin Hagler" that out to an acceptable conclusion without use of their gun, is expecting an awful lot. This seems to be a step backwards from the progress which was made on "stand your ground," and in actuality seems to leave an incredibly small and potentially shrinking sphere in which a defensive firearm can be "successfully" used. It basically suggests that if the altercation involves two so-called average males, and no "weapon" is obviously visible, no weapon can be employed until the situation degrades into a "George Zimmerman" type scenario.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't know...not everyone is built and trained like cops are they? Most cops are cops because they are fit, strong and well trained...no? Now the average or below average Joe has to be as tough and well trained as a cop before using deadly force.....I thought it was in fear for your life? I seen too many you tube videos of one punch fights not ending well. Shoot I got lucky when I was 20 and only weighed 140 lbs, guy grabbing me and harassing me I did a spinning back fist and knocked him out, he was well over 230 lbs. I don't think its rare at all. For me its coming down to in fear for my life as the law states. Although as I believe you said earlier, there may be a trial. I hate to think a bigger younger guy deciding he is going to beat the hell out of me means I get to get the hell beat out of me before defending myself out of fear for my life. On another note if any officer is attacked and in the process of attack I believe he has the same right to defend himself, the attacker KNOWS for sure what they are doing, in fact they know the officer has a gun...so why are they attacking a armed individual. In my book that officer should be able to dump a mag or 2 into the attacker. Just because some haven't learned its wrong to attack a officer doesn't mean they get a free pass. Maybe we would have a more polite society again......but thats just a opinion, we all have them. I appreciate your insights and reading your comments and learning.

Cops run the gamut. Some of us are old, fat, and/or busted up as well. However, younger/bigger are articulable facts that go toward disparity of force.

Fights that make YouTube are going to be interesting, because that's the point, not really the 'normal' fight. @churchmouse and others have been in real fights. How many resulted in being knocked out or SBI?

Hand to hand is my weakest point, so I'm taking BJJ. I took Craig Douglas' ECQC years ago. If you're serious about self defense, having a hand to hand game is important. I know, not everyone can, etc. etc. But much like learning emergency first aid, etc. it's a beneficial skill to have on board.

 

[ECS686]

Any court case Specifically a Deadly Force case is like a tree. It has a hundred branches in different directions on how it can go.

DO NOT make a statement until you can get advice on how to articulate your words, they mean things. Statements are like a bullet, once you make on you can't undue it.
You could be explaining your way into cuffs if you arent 110% sure of the law or misconstrue words.

Also, You can take the same scenerio in two separate counties and it shake out different. Just because someone else was cleared doesn't mean you will be (tree branch example theres always a small deviation that can change that case from YOUR case) so there's that.

The fact should be driven home a lot more than it is. Even in the most righteous use of deadly force the subject will have legal scrutiny beyond anything they can imagine The ones that boast "I'll be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6" proves to me they are clueless and have never testified in an alleged Federal or State criminal or civil inquiry It's not fun, trust me

Bottom line do whatever you think your career and bank account can handle

 

[BigRed]

 

[DragonGunner]

Cops run the gamut. Some of us are old, fat, and/or busted up as well. However, younger/bigger are articulable facts that go toward disparity of force.

Fights that make YouTube are going to be interesting, because that's the point, not really the 'normal' fight. @churchmouse and others have been in real fights. How many resulted in being knocked out or SBI?

Hand to hand is my weakest point, so I'm taking BJJ. I took Craig Douglas' ECQC years ago. If you're serious about self defense, having a hand to hand game is important. I know, not everyone can, etc. etc. But much like learning emergency first aid, etc. it's a beneficial skill to have on board.

Agree, did learn some stuff in my younger days, in the Army......pretty much going to take a guys eyes out first chance. Thats what I teach my wife if she can't run, ram those keys or your fingers into their eyes until you feel skull and then try breaking away, and if by chance you take a eye with you its bonus points. lol.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Didn't bother to watch the video. Don't talk to the police is great advice if you are guilty and need to suppress evidence to avoid a conviction. That is the majority of people that need a defense lawyer. Vast majority, actually.

Note most attorneys have little to no experience making the affirmative defense that you did the act but acted properly, aka a self defense shooting. As such their experience and their advice is going to be geared toward guilty clients. They want the nuh-uh defense, aka the Shaggy defense (it wasn't me). That doesn't apply to a self defense shooting. You are going to have to admit you shot the person to make a self defense case.

Which, side note, is why you don't want to hire an attorney who's background is solely Shaggy defense for a self defense trial. The tactics are not the same.

 

[drillsgt]

Didn't bother to watch the video. Don't talk to the police is great advice if you are guilty and need to suppress evidence to avoid a conviction. That is the majority of people that need a defense lawyer. Vast majority, actually.

Note most attorneys have little to no experience making the affirmative defense that you did the act but acted properly, aka a self defense shooting. As such their experience and their advice is going to be geared toward guilty clients. They want the nuh-uh defense, aka the Shaggy defense (it wasn't me). That doesn't apply to a self defense shooting. You are going to have to admit you shot the person to make a self defense case.

Which, side note, is why you don't want to hire an attorney who's background is solely Shaggy defense for a self defense trial. The tactics are not the same.

Your attitude in this post is exactly why videos like this exist.

 

[jsharmon7]

Your attitude in this post is exactly why videos like this exist.

Ignoring the information BBI is providing is foolish.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Your attitude in this post is exactly why videos like this exist.

You do you. Say nothing and hire a real estate attorney to represent you. That'll teach me.

 

[drillsgt]

Ignoring the information BBI is providing is foolish.

What advice to spill your guts and start rambling to an investigator the moments after a self defense shooting?

 

[jsharmon7]

What advice to spill your guts and start rambling to an investigator the moments after a self defense shooting?

That’s not at all what he said. He doesn’t need me to argue for him, but I hope sane people don’t ignore the information.

To everyone else, be smart and listen to expert information.

 

[drillsgt]

You do you. Say nothing and hire a real estate attorney to represent you. That'll teach me.

It's not a matter of saying nothing, you can relay the relevant events/facts without getting chatty or do you only go to bat for the ones that fall at your feet.

 

[drillsgt]

That’s not at all what he said. He doesn’t need me to argue for him, but I hope sane people don’t ignore the information.

To everyone else, be smart and listen to expert information.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, the post I referenced his only advice was if you don't talk to me that means you're guilty.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's not a matter of saying nothing, you can relay the relevant events/facts without getting chatty or do you only go to bat for the ones that fall at your feet.

Did you read post #15? I have no idea of what you're on about.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, the post I referenced his only advice was if you don't talk to me that means you're guilty.

Ah. Yeah, you just invented that because it certainly isn't anything I said. Try reading post 15 then reading the post you're referencing again.

 

[drillsgt]

Did you read post #15? I have no idea of what you're on about.



Ah. Yeah, you just invented that because it certainly isn't anything I said. Try reading post 15 then reading the post you're referencing again.

"Don't talk to the police is great advice if you are guilty and need to suppress evidence to avoid a conviction." I read post #15 that's standard fare, it was how I was taught and how I presented it to classes I taught. I didn't have a problem with that at all, only post #28, maybe I misinterpret your tone, we're likely on the same page.

 

[Twangbanger]

Didn't bother to watch the video. Don't talk to the police is great advice if you are guilty and need to suppress evidence to avoid a conviction. That is the majority of people that need a defense lawyer. Vast majority, actually.

Note most attorneys have little to no experience making the affirmative defense that you did the act but acted properly, aka a self defense shooting. As such their experience and their advice is going to be geared toward guilty clients. They want the nuh-uh defense, aka the Shaggy defense (it wasn't me). That doesn't apply to a self defense shooting. You are going to have to admit you shot the person to make a self defense case.

Which, side note, is why you don't want to hire an attorney who's background is solely Shaggy defense for a self defense trial. The tactics are not the same.

This is important and too often overlooked. I was on a jury that sent a guy away for 15 to 23 for murder and felonious assault. He was leaving a bar, and a woman and man jumped his azz inside the driver's side of his truck as he was getting in to leave. He knifed them both from inside his truck, and the blood was all over the interior of his truck, with relatively little outside, so it was obvious they took the fight "into his space." (This was pre-DNA days, so it was hard to suss out exactly whose blood was where, but blood type at minimum showed truck-man's blood was definitely shed). The woman, who was the lead attacker, didn't survive it.

It illustrates several points about how the law can work out not in your favor. As a juror, I was perfectly ready to let him walk for that woman's death on self-defense grounds, even though "the law" would say disparity of force was in the "wrong" direction (armed man vs. "unarmed" woman). But there was a problem: he didn't _claim_ self defense. He had a "Shaggy guilty people lawyer" as you reference, who obviously wasn't experienced in self-defense defense. The lawyer obviously felt more comfortable with "Shaggy defense," and also probably thought he might generate doubt as to who it was that actually stabbed the female during the ruckus, since the male attacker had a knife, too.

Would it have made a difference? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I potentially would have been willing to hang that jury to kingdom-come in the guy's defense, even though the disparity was in the "wrong" direction, if he would have only claimed self-defese and done a convincing job of it. As it was, he pulled some dumb "I blacked out and don't remember" story, which didn't sound credible, and we sent him to the joint after only an hour or so of discussion. I shrugged my shoulders and went back to my life. Oh wellsies.

But why _didn't_ that lawyer feel comfortable with a self-defense defense? That's part of what sucks about "disparity of force." Yeah, lawyer dood probably wasn't that good at self-defense defense. But I also have to believe the concept of "disparity of force" discouraged him from even trying it. It is likely he simply didn't believe a jury would ever acquit a man on deadly self-defense against a woman. Because the "disparity arrow" was the wrong direction. I know at least one juror who thought differently. I'm willing to hang a jury for what I think is right, in a good self-defense case. But there is a limit to how long someone like me can argue with 11 other people, when Guilty Guy is offering some sht-show "I don't remember" defense. I simply had other things to do with my time.

 

[Denny347]

Hand to hand is my weakest point, so I'm taking BJJ.

Nice, where at?

 

[TacOpsGuy320]

Hung jury, 2nd trial next year.
The kid probably saved his own life because his attackers had just killed someone else and were still wandering the downtown alleys looking for new victims.
But the judge says since kid didn't know the attackers were killers intent on violence, the jury shouldn't hear what the choir boy was doing just before his death.
Kid could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just staying home.

This is 1000000% accurate. I feel bad for the young man but when you take the responsibility on to carry a firearm you must be careful where you end up. Situational awareness is a very valuable skill.
Everyone be safe.