Ind. S. Ct., "Self-Defense" in the Home

[Kirk Freeman]

Remember just because you are home, just because you claim self-defense, does not make it so.

The true victory is the absence of fighting. Blood will always bring woe.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05181101rdr.pdf

 

[jbombelli]

I don't like the state's position. If two guys confront you with guns, one shoots at you, and you shoot both of them, to me that's self defense.

Granted, that was really hard to read on my cellphone, and some of it didn't render properly so I couldn't really read the whole thing.

But based on what I was able to read I would have voted to acquit if I was on the second jury.

It kind of comes across as the state pulling a fast one by separating the charges and treating them as unrelated when the whole thing happened inside 3 seconds?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Remeber to always practice the 3 S's of home defense.

 

[patience0830]

hmm

Shoot shovel and shut up?

Sounds like a case of three idiots with weapons. Wonder if any of the three had a LTCH?

 

[RichardR]

My favorite part ...

"Coleman does not explain, nor can we discern, how his fear of Jermaine transferred to a fear of Dye."

Isn't that like saying "just because you were in fear of the one armed robber who was pointing his gun at you, you had no reason to fear the second armed robber who's gun was pointed at the ground"?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Shoot shovel and shut up?

I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'...

 

[CarmelHP]

Remember, the issue decided was whether there were separate facts supporting the elements of each charge. The son, JJ, drew on the def. and was shot, with an acquittal on that charge. Daddy is shot, drops and a (unsuccessful) coup de grace is delivered by the def, he's first mistried on the attempt charge, then convicted in a separate trial. I agree that those are independent events as far as proof of the elements go. A reasonable jury can find one justified and one not without overlapping contradictory factual findings that would act as collateral estoppel.

 

[LP1]

Based on what I could wade through in the legalese, it sounds like all parties were a bit on the sketchy side - past history of robbing each other, one person gets some of the stuff returned, etc. I'm guessing that none of them presented themselves very convincingly. Seems like a good lesson to take away from this is to choose your associates wisely and cultivate a good reputation.

 

[jbombelli]

Remember, the issue decided was whether there were separate facts supporting the elements of each charge. The son, JJ, drew on the def. and was shot, with an acquittal on that charge. Daddy is shot, drops and a (unsuccessful) coup de grace is delivered by the def, he's first mistried on the attempt charge, then convicted in a separate trial. I agree that those are independent events as far as proof of the elements go. A reasonable jury can find one justified and one not without overlapping contradictory factual findings that would act as collateral estoppel.

That sounds like he tried to finish the guy off? I must have missed that part in some of those pages I couldn't read.

I guess that would put a different spin on it.





For most people.




As far as I'm concerned, if you go around starting gunfights maybe you NEED to get shot.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

My biggest part was when Coleman Drove Away and Disposed of his gun... Sounds like a criminal mindset to me. Now me personally, if I'm at my house and two guys show up not invited pointing guns at me, lets just say neither one will be talking about it after. The Castle Doctrine works, just don't look like a criminal yourself.

 

[Bunnykid68]

My biggest part was when Coleman Drove Away and Disposed of his gun... Sounds like a criminal mindset to me. Now me personally, if I'm at my house and two guys show up not invited pointing guns at me, lets just say neither one will be talking about it after. The Castle Doctrine works, just don't look like a criminal yourself.

Also, why would you throw away a perfectly good gun.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Also, why would you throw away a perfectly good gun.

Maybe it was a Glock.

 

[aikidoka]

Maybe it was a Glock.

Perfectly good could only mean 1911

 

[rich8483]

Maybe it was a Glock.

i dont think so, it appears it did not dispose of itself, it had to be done by the shooter.

 

[mikefraz]

i dont think so, it appears it did not dispose of itself, it had to be done by the shooter.

I didn't see anything about an explosion in the report...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, I guess it could have been an XD or S&W