Sad news from Shelby County

[JetGirl]

Regardless of what spin the media puts on, he clearly did not identify his target before shooting. That is the key point.

 

[singlestacksig]

the existence of a dog only helps his case if the dog has a bullet hole thru it .. it might be reasonable that he thought the dog was a coyote and shot the dog , and got a person with a pass thru...
still he is quoted saying he fired into tree line...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So if they (media) did not interview him?? Then how did they get a statement?? They do not put investigating statements to the media.. they might throw them a bone or two.. but never full statement.
Your right he did shoot towards a noise AFTER the family dog ran into the woods in the exact same spot. So it's funny how ALL you judge just by the way the media portrays.... .

Is that his full statement? Could it be a bone that they threw the media? Police release a lot of information. Quite a bit of it they are required to do under law.

Again he shot towards a noise, he may have seen something he thought was a coyote. But he still shot towards a noise. See below.

RULE I:
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET and what lies beyond.

FTFY.

 

[finity]

The four rules, although should be followed, I don't really think they're written into any law as would apply here (correct me with applicable IC if wrong).

I think the essence of the "four rules" are written into law:

IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this section, "hazing" means forcing or requiring another person:
(1) with or without the consent of the other person; and
(2) as a condition of association with a group or organization;
to perform an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.
(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:
(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; or
(2) hazing;
commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (c), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle;
(2) a Class D felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
(d) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; or
(2) performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person;
commits criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly weapon.
(e) A person, other than a person who has committed an offense under this section or a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the violator was an adult, who:
(1) makes a report of hazing in good faith;
(2) participates in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from a report of hazing;
(3) employs a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2); or
(4) supervises a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2);
is not liable for civil damages or criminal penalties that might otherwise be imposed because of the report or participation.
(f) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) is presumed to act in good faith.
(g) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) may not be treated as acting in bad faith solely because the person did not have probable cause to believe that a person committed:
(1) an offense under this section; or
(2) a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the offender was an adult.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.31; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.1; P.L.323-1987, SEC.1; P.L.216-1996, SEC.17; P.L.1-2003, SEC.94; P.L.75-2006, SEC.3.

There is nothing there that gives you a pass if the reckless act you performed was on your own property.

If you do something that COULD have caused injury to someone else but didn't then then an argument COULD be made that the act actually wasn't "reckless".

If, OTOH, you do something that ACTUALLY DOES cause injury to someone then I see no way to argue that it wasn't "reckless" because you did IN FACT cause injury.

Shooting at noises (anywhere) is just plain stupid & more than likely, from the IC above, illegal.

Also to clarify:

Some people think it's legal to shoot at trespassers.

IT'S NOT!!

Simple criminal trespass is not a crime that justifies deadly force.