Lawrence shooting: self defense?

[Topshot]

If only he had also carried a non-lethal alternative.

 

[actaeon277]

In no particular order... Not sure why it matters whether or not the deceased had a gun - lots of damage to be done with fists. Was it mutual combat? Sounds like the shooter had some carry knowledge, since he waited for police to arrive. From various reports, I get the impression that the shooter knew that he might be walking into a threatening situation - prudent thing would be to leave (or not go there in the first place). What does this all add up to? IDK

Because, you are only allowed (by law) reasonable force, not deadly force, to defend yourself.
It escalates to deadly force if you are stopping a forcible felony, or preventing serious bodily injury. (Of course, also to terminate unwanted entry into or attack upon your house or occupied motor vehicle)
The problem will be explaining to a jury, or prosecutor.

If you are 95 pounds dripping wet, with multiple serious medical issues, facing an attack by 3 violent felons, all over 6 foot and 250 pounds, well your case is probably going to go good for you.
But if things are closer to even, well a jury, sitting in a heated/air conditioned room, most of whom have not made life threatening decisions, well your case might be in jeopardy.

 

[Sigblitz]

10 shell casings found on scene. Bullet fragments in 13 different places of the body.

 

[Sigblitz]

News said 11 shots.

 

[LP1]

Because, you are only allowed (by law) reasonable force, not deadly force, to defend yourself.
It escalates to deadly force if you are stopping a forcible felony, or preventing serious bodily injury. (Of course, also to terminate unwanted entry into or attack upon your house or occupied motor vehicle)
The problem will be explaining to a jury, or prosecutor.

If you are 95 pounds dripping wet, with multiple serious medical issues, facing an attack by 3 violent felons, all over 6 foot and 250 pounds, well your case is probably going to go good for you.
But if things are closer to even, well a jury, sitting in a heated/air conditioned room, most of whom have not made life threatening decisions, well your case might be in jeopardy.

So you're assuming because they were both teenagers, that the person being attacked should be expected to be able to respond with his fists? That's a major leap. I'm not experienced with physical combat, and I've got a few miles on me - any physical threat, weapon or not, will be treated as a threat of severe bodily harm. But as for the kid explaining it to a jury, well...

 

[Hawkeye7br]

I'm reasonably healthy and hit the gym 2-3 times a week. I'm also age 64 and have had 4 heart operations. Slugging it out with someone is a non starter. Taking a beating under the guise of "fair fight" isn't gonna happen either. If I have backed up, told my attacker to stop, made it plain that I am armed, and he still advances...isn't that kinda the definition of self defense?

 

[Sigblitz]

Victim was shot several times while running away. But he had a licence for murder.

I'm genuinely surprised by the level of stupidity of some people.

 

[actaeon277]

So you're assuming because they were both teenagers, that the person being attacked should be expected to be able to respond with his fists? That's a major leap. I'm not experienced with physical combat, and I've got a few miles on me - any physical threat, weapon or not, will be treated as a threat of severe bodily harm. But as for the kid explaining it to a jury, well...

I'm not stating "should be expected to respond with his fist".
I am stating when Indiana law allows "lethal force" vs. "reasonable force".
A lot of lawyers have made $$ because of gun owners that didn't make a distinction.