You better have some marks on you or be shot if you didn't try to retreat before shooting.Looks like murder to me!Ever heard the term,
"No duty to retreat" ?
I do not think (the first shot) is Murder, but Manslaughter. All subsequent shots are Murder.Anybody who thinks that's not murder, I want you on my jury if I am a defendant.
I have a question.Without the video, a lot easier to make the defense.
...but there's the video.
As to the thought exercise of applying Indiana law:
"(c)...if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person, employer, or estate of a person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;..."
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle."
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-3-2.
I highlighted use of the term "reasonable" and "reasonably". So, to be justified, the shooter has to believe that his use of deadly force is is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, a forcible felony (simple battery isn't a felony), or to terminate an unlawful entry or attack in the curtilage- I think we can agree this is probably at least curtilage.
HOWEVER, it's not enough for the shooter to believe it- his belief must be reasonable and the means to resist must be reasonable. "Reasonable" takes this outside the realm of of the subjective belief of the shooter and brings the analysis into the realm of the objective. That is, we no longer care what the shooter thought, we care what the hypothetical reasonable man, the average guy....in reality- what the jury thinks about it.
This is a tough one in that regard. The video DOES NOT help the defense, it hurts. It would be easy for jurors to see the gun as a completely unnecessary escalation and that the poorly executed poke didn't deserve deadly force for any of the allowed reasons.
Like Kirk said, this guy seems to have wanted to go to jail. Could he win at trial? Sure- anything is possible...but he would have to go to trial to win this one.
I have a question.
How much of a beating does one have to receive before it becomes a felony?
Can a person punch another 4 or 5 times and it only is a misdemeanor?
How about a hard slap on someones ear like jiu-jitsu teach that seem to knock a person over or off balance?
Basically when does using hands or feet become a felony for which one can use deadly force to defend themselves in Indiana?
I understand that in writing. However, there is a lot of when that person thinks they are xyz.
I understand that in writing. However, there is a lot of when that person thinks they are xyz.
So by law in a court room it's what a person perceived. Not what the jury, DA, or judge thinks. Or am I misunderstanding that?
"what the person reasonably believes"
It repeats this over and over.
Kind of what I was thinking, however I believe everyone will have own belief as to what is reasonable.Person REASONABLY believes. REASONABLY. You can believe the person you shot was attempting to steal your soul via voodoo. You can be absolutely certain this is the case. This is not a reasonable belief.
What you perceived is a different question. If you learn something after the fact, for good or ill, that is irrelevant to your decision and (in theory) the court can't hold you to that standard of knowledge.
However a judge or jury will absolutely be considering if your beliefs were reasonable.
If Mike Tyson threatens to punch me and is within a reasonable distance for said punch to be delivered, I'm good to go to shoot him. I have prior knowledge that he's an incredible fighter and can easily overwhelm me. He's stronger by a large margin. His training is vastly superior to my own. How many punches from Tyson is reasonable: Zero.
Granny in a wheelchair threatens to punch me, then wheels over and starts punching me in the hip. How many punches before I can shoot her: Infinite.
At what point does a reasonable person, with their reasonable perception of events as they are, believe they are in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury? Can you articulate that to a judge or jury to the point they also find it reasonable from your viewpoint? I again refer to the case I had where a guy used deadly force vs a mere threat of a punch to the back of the head and some minor physical bumping. Totally ok. Why? Guy had a severe medical condition, well documented, that a blow to the head could easily trigger a fatal seizure. The jury can't say "well, I don't have that condition..." and decide differently, but had charges been filed it still would have been up to them to say yes, that's reasonable given what he knew about his own health vs the threat.
Kind of what I was thinking, however I believe everyone will have own belief as to what is reasonable.
For instance if two or more are beating, and kicking a person the victim has the right to use deadly force IMO that would be reasonable.