Homeowner may face charges??

[rnmcguire]

This seems like a classic self defense shooting. The media loves to add drama to a story. I highly doubt there will be any charges filed.

Homeowner may face charges after fatally shooting suspected carjacker | Fox 59 News – fox59.com

 

[brentlh]

From reading the story I can't imagine what kind of charges they could file. Of course I am not a DA though

 

[Classic]

I think the investigation is a formality. +1 to the armed citizen!

 

[96firephoenix]

only reason I could see for charges would be for firing at the "alleged accomplice" as he allegedly ran away... other than that...clean shoot.

 

[rnmcguire]

Kudos to this guy for being prepared. I wonder if he's an INGO member?

 

[vitamink]

They say stuff like that all the time to get more milage out of the story. It's the news. The goal is to get you upset so you'll "stay tuned". Initially they tell you that someone was shot. Then they tell you that a homeowner shot a suspected carjacker. Then they tell you that the homeowner may face charges. Soon you'll hear that the homeowner won't be charged but they'll give a small tidbit of info making some feel like he should have been charged. Again this is just to get milage out of the story. For them to say, "a shooting happened on the north east side where a homeowner shot a man for an attempted carjacking...detectives are investigating", is kinda boring. To lead you to believe that there was nothing wrong but that someone may get charged will cause you to read. Later to say that there are no charges but perhaps he should have been will cause you to read more.

 

[jwh20]

It's just BAD reporting on the part of Fox 59 news and unless there is more to this story than reported, the prosecutor has no basis for any charges.

I believe the applicable statute is:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully

in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).


So the only question here is: "is that force justified under subsection (c)? That reads:

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
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 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.

If indeed the would-be car thief pulled a gun, then it's pretty clear that this homeowner is justified. If the thief had a gun but didn't pull it, that may be a different story.

I'd certainly not want to be the DA trying to argue this case before a jury.

 

[Denny347]

I can tell you that no one on the scene thought he should face charges. He won't face anything.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

only reason I could see for charges would be for firing at the "alleged accomplice" as he allegedly ran away... other than that...clean shoot.

They must have changed the story because this morning, it doesn't say anything about shooting at the accompliss.

On a side note...that is definitely not a home with much of a view.

 

[billybob44]

He won't face anything.

I can tell you that no one on the scene thought he should face charges. He won't face anything.

That is the way it should work..

Denny, do you agree that the MOST grief to the Homeowner will come from "Friends" of the dead perp?? Bill.

 

[billybob44]

Well Yes and No...

"On a side note...that is definitely not a home with much of a view."

I noticed the same..One window on that side of the house...BUT...I did spot a camera on the right side roof area?? I am sure that there is more??..Bill.

 

[ghuns]

Sad that someone who probably considers his/herself a "journalist" wrote that little pile of cat crap.

 

[45fan]

Sad that someone who probably considers his/herself a "journalist" wrote that little pile of cat crap.

Tell me about it!! Where is all the pertinent information. What type/caliber gun was used, what ammunition was he shooting, how was his shot placement...

This guy just took a criminal off the streets, I want to know all about it. Start publishing pictures of these criminals that meet their end in such a way, possibly discouraging others from taking that path in life.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah, that reads like a No File. I would imagine we will have a decision announced very soon.

Now, what's up with that funky house? Did the window contractor show up late?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, that reads like a No File. I would imagine we will have a decision announced very soon.

Now, what's up with that funky house? Did the window contractor show up late?

I wonder what their electric bill runs/month...just sayin'

 

[billybob44]

Did the window contractor show up late?

Yeah, that reads like a No File. I would imagine we will have a decision announced very soon.

Now, what's up with that funky house? Did the window contractor show up late?

No Kirk, that glass fixture in the center of the house is a "Turret"-I'm pretty sure I saw a M-60 behind the glass.. Did you notice the camera at the upper right?? Bet there's more?..Bill.

 

[Jack Burton]

there are other reasons they may be pressing charges, such as a felon in possession of a gun. Not all "charges" relate to the shooting itself.

 

[long coat]

I one story the BG was shot in the BACK of the head....I still say good shot.

 

[finity]

If indeed the would-be car thief pulled a gun, then it's pretty clear that this homeowner is justified. If the thief had a gun but didn't pull it, that may be a different story.

Section (c) doesn't say that the only way to be justified is to have a gun pulled on you. You can be justified if you reasonably believe that you are in imminent jeopardy of serious bodily injury OR the victim of a forcible felony. Both of those terms are defined in IN law.


IC 35-31.5-2-138
"Forcible felony"
Sec. 138. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.
As added by P.L.114-2012, SEC.67.




IC 35-31.5-2-292
"Serious bodily injury"
Sec. 292. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
As added by P.L.114-2012, SEC.67.


As you can see, there's nothing in either of those definitions that mention a weapon of any kind, let alone a deadly weapon.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Now, what's up with that funky house? Did the window contractor show up late?

Maybe the siding contractor who gets paid by the square foot of wall called and said 'I'm sorry to hear about that accident you had next week!'