Stand Your Ground?

[Kirk Freeman]

Guy wanted to go to prison. I cannot imagine a Central American prison being anyplace a sane person would want to be.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Jerry Springer stuff. Looks like from the “Rights without Responsibility” episode.

 

[Bassat]

Maybe 25 years ago, Mas Ayoob testified for the defense at a 'murder' trial. A man had a history of abusing his wife/ex-wife. There was a restraining order in place. She bought and trained with a high-cap 9mm pistol. Said offender appears at her home, barges in unwelcome and uninvited. Said wife unleashes a volley of shots. To paraphrase the procecutor, "Was not your intent to kill the victim? Why did you shoot him (IIRC) 15 times?" Her answer, supported by Mas' arguments was, "Because he was still standing after 14." There was one round left in her gun. That shows her intent to stop the threat, not kill the offender. She walked. (I may or may not have the number of rounds correct.)

Mr. Shooter in this video has NONE OF THIS IN HIS DEFENSE. A fairly easy case for pre-meditated murder, if you ask me (and nobody is).

 

[edporch]

At first I was open to it maybe being a situation where the man with the pistol had a genuine fear the other guy was dangerous, capable of, and would cause him great bodily harm or even kill him.
BUT when the story said he kept shooting him after he was on the ground and not a threat anymore, it's murder to me.

 

[Butch627]

Could anyone count how many variables there could be that would effect charges against the shooter? What if the other guy knew how to throw a punch? How many punches would it have taken for the shoot to be legit? What if he had gone after the wife instead of the husband? What if there was history where the dead guy had pulled a gun or made threats in arguments in the past?

 

[greg]

Ever heard the term,
"No duty to retreat" ?

You better have some marks on you or be shot if you didn't try to retreat before shooting.Looks like murder to me!

 

[HoughMade]

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.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Manslaughter would be the shooter's victory. Some victory.

By breaking contact and going inside you lose nothing and win everything.

 

[cedartop]

Anybody who thinks that's not murder, I want you on my jury if I am a defendant.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Anybody who thinks that's not murder, I want you on my jury if I am a defendant.

I do not think (the first shot) is Murder, but Manslaughter. All subsequent shots are Murder.

Necessity. I urge everyone on INGO read the self-defense statute and focus on necessary.

 

[rugertoter]

Judas Priest! Soooooooooo...did that guy go to slide lock or what?

 

[DadSmith]

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?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

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?

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-41-3-2/

 

[DadSmith]

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-41-3-2/

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.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

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.

 

[DadSmith]

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.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Generally speaking, yes. Being outnumbered is definitely a consideration for disparity of force. Significant differences in age, strength, skill level, etc. all play in. A 70 year old woman can reasonably use deadly force in scenarios that a healthy 20 year old male would be sensibly required to use less lethal means to deal with.

Remembering a jury needs to be unanimous, most 'on the bubble' reasonableness questions are not filed on. Generally isn't always. Political considerations, narrative building, etc. can change that.

 

[manifest destiny]

The average man wouldn't have the ability to determine when a physical attack crosses the line between misdemeanor and felony. I can't imagine thinking about that while another human is attacking me on my own property, sissy punches or not.

I carry with a round chambered. I can't imagine needing to do a press-check. If one carries a pistol for protection against random acts of violence, would he have the opportunity to press-check when the baddie gets the drop on him? It seems like bad practice for EDC. To each his own.

The video link says unavailable so I couldn't review the recorded specifics of this situation. Others here described what appeared to be two different issues, the first shot and the follow up shots. Based on the descriptions offered, I'd be cool with the first shot. The rest of the shots might need some explaining. The explanation could make a ton of difference. Again, I wasn't able to view the video, but it sounds like the follow up shots were bad unless otherwise explained.

*ETA
I found the vid in post #15. I'm cool with the first shot. Singular. The shooter was being physically attacked. The shooter did not initiate the physical altercation. I presume the shooter to have been on his own property. But every shot after that first one - eesh! Also, that press-check does look damning, now that I've seen the vid.

 

[Route 45]

Don’t know why the original link is gone, here’s another.

 

[INP8riot]

I had a situation back in AZ where people were nuts. My wife yelled at another woman because her off leash dog came charging and growling at us while we were walking our dogs. She and her husband apparently got in their car and drove around to find us. The guy ripped up and started yelling at me about yelling at his wife. I calmly explained I did not say a word to his wife and he better not say one to mine. All the while this was happening, I had seen a woman standing by her car. Witness #1 in my mind. My hand was on my gun in my pocket. I LOUDLY stated...I do not want any trouble, please leave us alone and I instructed my wife to walk away with me. He continued to drive along side of us yelling.

Do you know how badly I wanted to go off on him? What would that have done in front of a jury if that witness said I was screaming irrationally back at him? Instead she would have said the guy walking his dog with his wife asked the dead guy to go away and he didn't want any trouble. The guy in the vehicle got out and charged him, it all happened so quick! Fortunately they did leave us alone and I just rolled my eyes at the witness.

My point being, with cameras, people, and people with cameras everywhere...optics is key. We have seen that jurers don't care about what you did based on your point of viewor what you perceived at the time. It is about what THEY perceive after given all the evidence. They have weeks or months to make a decision. You have seconds to make yours and way less evidence then they have. Use your head when out in public. Carrying a weapon requires more than ability and know how. It requires constant vigilance to keep yourself out of a situation that requires you to use that weapon. If all else fails and you do have to use it, make sure people see you tried to avoid that situation and you had no other choice. Pride and ego be damned, this is about going back to your normal life, the way it was when you walked out of your house that morning something like this happens.